Freedom of Speech "Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race.“ - Charles Bradlaugh British social reformer ( )

“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech …” – The First Amendment

The Supreme Court has extended the meaning of freedom of speech to include “symbolic speech,” or the use of symbols, emblems, and signs to communicate ideas.

Freedom of Speech Five Exceptions – Clear and Present Danger – Fighting Words – Obscenity – Sedition – Slander

Freedom of Speech Clear and Present Danger – Schenck v. United States, 1919 – Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic … The question in every case is whether the words used are in such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evil that Congress has the right to protect.”

Freedom of Speech Fighting Words – 1942 – An utterance which provokes another to anger but has little if any social value may be considered “fighting words” and violates the concept of free speech

Freedom of Speech Obscenity – Violates the public sense of decency and is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has not, however, been able to define the term with any precision – Defined by local standards

Freedom of Speech Sedition – Advocating the violent overthrow of the government is unconstitutional

Freedom of Speech Slander – Exposing a person or group to contempt, ridicule, or hatred and adversely affecting their reputation NOT CONSIDERED SLANDER: – The Truth – Something said with consent of individual – Accidental speech where no negligence or malice was intended – Speech of privileged speaker protected by immunity » Member of Congress speaking to colleague » Parent speaking to a child

Freedom of Speech DeJonge v. Oregon, 1937 – Dirk DeJonge was distributing Communist propaganda and trying to organize meetings. He advocated political and social change in America. He was arrested for attempting to overthrow the government, and his case eventually made it to the US Supreme Court. – How did the court rule? – The court overturned the lower court ruling, saying his speech presented no clear danger to the government

Freedom of Speech US v. O’Brien, 1968 David Paul O'Brien and three companions burned their draft cards on the steps of the South Boston Courthouse, in front of a crowd that happened to include several FBI agents. After the four men came under attack from some of the crowd, an FBI agent ushered O'Brien inside the courthouse and advised him of his rights. O'Brien proudly confessed to the agent and produced the charred remains of the certificate. He was subsequently put on trial for failing to carry his draft card, and destroying government property. O'Brien argued that the Act was unconstitutional. He explained to the jury that he burned the draft card publicly to persuade others to oppose the war. O'Brien was convicted and sentenced to the maximum of six years – How did the court rule? – The Supreme Court ruled in O’Brien’s favor and defined this as “symbolic speech,” or speaking through actions or symbols.

Freedom of Speech Tinker vs. Des Moines School District, 1969 John F. Tinker (15 years old), John's younger sister Mary Beth Tinker, (13) and their friend Christopher Eckhardt (16) decided to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War and supporting the Christmas Truce called for by Robert Kennedy. The school board heard rumor of this and banned the wearing of armbands to school. The three kids were suspended from school for violating the policy. How did the court rule? – The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Tinkers, saying the armbands were protected “symbolic speech” and did not disrupt the educational process at the school

Freedom of Speech Wisconsin v. Ovadal, 2003 Ralph Ovadal is a conservative minister, and had a group of church members protesting on a state-owned nude beach. He and a nude sunbather got into a verbal altercation, and he started yelling the words “Jezebel,” “whore,” and “harlot” at her. Police arrested him for disturbing the peace, but he argued First Amendment protection to free speech. – The state court ruled against Rev. Ovadal citing the Fighting Words Doctrine

Freedom of Speech Clay v. Minnesota, 1998 Nathan Webb Clay was arrested in May 1998 after he called a police officer responding to a report of a fight a "white racist motherf----r." Clay then told that officer and a second officer, whom he also accused of racism, he hoped their mothers would die. A state district court convicted Clay of disorderly conduct. On appeal, Clay argued his speech was protected by the First Amendment. – The state court ruled against Clay citing the Fighting Words Doctrine

Freedom of Speech Bethel Schools v. Fraser, 1986 Matthew Fraser, a Washington high school senior, gave a speech nominating classmate Jeff Kuhlman for student body vice president. The speech before 600 students was filled with sexual innuendos, but not obscenity, prompting disciplinary action from the administration. “Jeff is a man who will go to the very end - even the climax, for each and every one of you. So please vote for Jeff Kuhlman..." Fraser was suspended two days and prohibited from speaking at graduation. Fraser argued his speech was protected by the First Amendment, and did not cause a significant disruption in the school – The state court ruled against Fraser, saying schools have the right to teach appropriate social behavior

“The undoubted freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against the society’s countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior. … Surely, it is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse. … The determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board.” - Chief Justice Warren Burger

Freedom of Speech "The ultimate test of a belief in free speech should be whether it can be extended to people you hate.“ - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes