| A | B |
|---|
| Chaplinski v. New Hampshire | Fighting words that enrage someone are not protected speech. |
| R.A.V. v. St. Paul, MN | Speech cannot be denied 1st Amendment protection simply because it makes someone angry. |
| Lovell v. Griffin, GA (Distribution) | Cities may not restrict distribution of materials unless they contain non-protected speech. (See page 99--time, place, manner restrictions) |
| Milwaukee Social Democrat Publishing v. Berleson (Distribution) | The mail service does not have to carry literature/materials that are against the law. |
| Hannigan v. Esquire (Distribution) | The US Mail cannot refuse to deliver indecent materials as it does not have the power of censorship. |
| City of Lakewood v. The Plain Dealer Publishing Co. (Distribution--Newsracks) | A mayor cannot be given unbridled authority to reject a permit request. |
| City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network (Distribution) | A city may not outlaw handbills entirely. |
| Kleindienst v. Mandel | Freedom of speech in 1st Amendment only applys to US Citizens. |
| West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnett | Freedom of speech also means freedom not to speak (no one can be forced to recite the Pledge). |
| Near v. Minnesota (Prior Restraint) | A state has a heavy burden of proof of the necessity of restricting a newspaper. |
| United States v. Dickinson (Prior Restraint) | A judge's orders must be obeyed until the order is overturned. |
| Matter of Providence Journal (Prior Restraint) | A transparently invalid injunction by a judge can be disobeyed. |
| CNN v. Noriega | Disobeying a judge can still cause trouble. |
| McGraw Hill v. Proctor & Gamble | Even temporary restraint on free speech is improper without a compelling reason. |
| Bantam Books v. Sullivan | It is unconstitutional to restrict sale of indecent magazines in places where minors might be. |
| Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe | Freedom of speech extends to protesting the practices of a private business. |
| Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District | Schools have a right to keep order but not to limit protest. |
| Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier | A school has the right to censor a student newspaper. |
| Alexander v. United States (R.I.C.O.) | Government is justified in shutting down an entire business if one part is involved in racketeering. |
| Simon & Schuster v. Members of NY Crime Victims Board (Son of Sam Laws) | Son of Sam Laws must be narrowly tailored; profits can only be confiscated from works having to do with the crime. |
| Schenck v. United States (Progression on Sedition 1) | Freedom of speech does not apply to speech that creates a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to national security. |
| Abrams v. United States (Progression on Sedition 2) | The 1st Amendment does not protect speaking out against the government in issues of national security. |
| Gitlow v. New York (Progression on Sedition 3) | Advocating violent overthrow of the government is always illegal because there is a NATURAL TENDENCY of such words to incite violence. |
| Whitney v. California (Progression on Sedition 4) | Dissenting opinion: Fear of violence doesn't necessitate supression of free speech. |
| Dennis v. United States (Progression on Sedition 5) | Advocating the violent overthrow is not protected if one has the means to attempt action. |
| Yates v. United States (Progression on Sedition 6) | There must be a direct relationship between speech and action. |
| Brandenburg v. Ohio (Progression on Sedition 7) | States cannot restrict free speech unless IMMINENT, LAWLESS ACTION is likely to occur. |
| Hess v. Indiana (Progression on Sedition 8) | The government must show that words would actually cause imminent violence or danger in order to restrict speech. |
| New York Times v. Sullivan (Progression on Libel 1) | There is a difference between a PUBLIC OFFICIAL and a PRIVATE CITIZEN. ACTUAL MALICE must be shown in a lawsuit against a public official. |
| Rosenblatt v. Baer (Progression on Libel 2) | A public official is a person who works for the government and has some control over government operations. |
| Curtis Publishing v. Butts / Associated Press v. Walker (Progression on Libel 3) | PUBLIC FIGURES must alos prove actual malice to win a libel suit. |
| St. Amant v. Thompson (Progression on Libel 4) | Reckless disregard for the truth must be decided on a case-by-case basis, but there must be evidence that the defendant entertained serious doubts about the truth of his/her story. |
| Rosenbloom v. Metromedia (Progression on Libel 5) | A private citizen who is involved in a newsworthy event mus tprove actual malice to win a libel suit. |
| Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (Progression on Libel 6) | A limited-purpose public figure is one who is famous for a limited time or in one area. |
| Time v. Firestone (Progression on Libel 7) | A person is not newsworthy based on the word of a publication; the person needs to have voluntarily thrust him/herself into the vortex of human affairs. |
| Wolston v. Reader's Digest | After being out of the spotlight, a person can lose public-figure status. |
| Hutchinson v. Proxmire | Absolute privilege only applies when one is on the floor of the U.S. Congress; using public funds does not necessarily make one a public official. |
| Dameron v. Washington | In exceedingly rare cases, a person can gain public figure status without seeking it. |
| Anderson v. Liberty Lobby | A judge may pass summary judgment (dismiss a case) at his/her discretion. |
| Bose v. Consumers Union | An appellate court may review evidence presented at the original trial (but not new evidence). |
| Edwards v. National Audubon Society | NEUTRAL REPORTAGE is granted to reporters who report accurate information without bias. |
| Milkovich v. Lorain Journal | Opinion is that which cannot be proven true or false. |
| Masson v. New Yorker Magazine | MATERIAL DIFFERENCES must be shown between what is said and what is quoted. |
| Hustler v. Jerry Falwell | Intentional infliction of emotional harm is not considered libel. |
| Doe v. ABC | Negligence suits must show that ordinary care was not taken by the defendant. |
| Herceg v. Hustler | Freedom of speech is not based on the idea that it can do no harm; the state can protect its citizens through narrowly-tailored laws. |
| DeFilippo v. NBC | Programs cannot always be based on what is good for minors. |
| Vance v. Judas Priest | A medium cannot be held responsible for a person's death without clear evidence that it was detrimental. |
| Walt Disney Productions v. Shannon | Unless a program specifically encourages a child to do something dangerous, they cannot be held liable. |
| Olivia v. NBC | Free speech cannot be supressed by using negligence laws. |
| Rice v. Paladin Press | Publishers who publish instructions for harming someone can be successfully sued for negligence. |
| Hyde v. City of Columbia | Negligence occurs if it is reasonable to conclude that publishing information would be dangerous. |
| Eimann v. Soldier of Fortune | A magazine is not negligent if it publishes an innocent ad that leads to infliction of harm. |
| Braun v. Soldier of Fortune | A magazine is negligent if it publishes an ad that invites infliction of harm. |
