1. 1st and 2nd Amendment Project
Jake Hopper, Guadalupe Martinez, Miles Bergeron, Robert Parr, Aramis Leigh, Yesenia Alvarado

2. 1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances
Freedom of Religion.
Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of the Press.
Freedom to Assemble Peaceably.
Freedom to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances.

3. Freedom of Assembly -Right for people to assemble and express views
Does not give the right to incite others to violence, block a public street, close a school, endanger a life, property or public safety, to trespass
Governments limit the place and time of of freedom of assembly with “free speech zones”

4. Chaplinsky vs New Hampshire (1942) “Fighting words”
Is it a violation of the 1st amendment freedom of speech to arrest someone for breaching peace for using fighting words? Answer: NO
Verdict : In forms of expression, fighting words do not convey ideas and do not provide protection under the first amendment.

5. How the case came about
In the state of New Hampshire the law states that nobody can call anyone by an offensive name or word in a public place or on a street. They made this law because if someone violates it it would possibly breach pace which could lead to violence. In 1942, Walter Chaplinsky challenged it by calling a City Marshal a “Damned fascist” and a “damned rocketeer” as well. This violated the law and in the court’s eyes could’ve led to violence.

6. Significance
This case is important and significant because the first amendment gives all citizens freedom of speech but the use of fighting words does not protect citizens under it. This case is an example of a court interpreting the law of the constitution

7. Engel v. Vitale (1962)
What? Steven Engle was representing his Jewish family who does not agree with having to pray a Christian prayer after saying the Pledge of Allegiance. That the school district wrote and was ran by William Vital.
When? On April 3, 1962, the case was argued, and it took about two months for the court to decide on June 25,

8. Engel v. Vitale (1962)
Why? When Engle was visiting his son at school, he didn't agree on the prayer that the school district wrote for all schools to say after the pledge. Engle was a Jew and did not accept the “God” they were representing.
How? The prayer was unconstitutional to the first amendment. They were sure to affirm to keep the state separated with religion. Other cases were brought for the same reason. For example: Education v. Barnette, Zorach v. Clauson, or McCollum v. Board of Education.

9. Engel v. Vitale (1962)
This case was one of the first to challenge prayer in a public school. Accusing that it was not constitutional to the first amendment that includes freedom of religion. Since the elementary school was a public school its part of the goverment that taxpayers pay for.

10. Morse v. Frederick (2007) “Free Speech & Public School Students”
Do School authorities violate the First Amendment when they stop students from expressing views that may be interpreted as promoting illegal drug use? NO

11. Morse v. Frederick (2007)
At a school-supervised event, Joseph Frederick held up a banner with "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," a reference to marijuana smoking. Principal Morse took away the banner and suspended Frederick for 10 days because the school's policy against the display of material that promotes the use of illegal drugs.

12. Morse v. Frederick (2007)
Frederick sued under the federal civil rights statute, alleging a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

13. The Court said the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" could be viewed as promoting illegal drug use, so the state had an "important" if not "compelling" interest in prohibiting/punishing student speech that could be viewed as promoting illegal drug use.
The Court held that schools may "take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use" without fear of violating a student's First Amendment rights.

14. Closely Related to Morse v. Frederick (2007)
The Court noted in Bethel v. Fraser, (1986) that "the constitutional rights of students at public school are not automatically, coextensive with the rights of adults." The rights of students are applied "in light of the special characteristics of the school environment,"

15. Closely related to Morse v. Frederick
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the Court stated that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Tinker held that the wearing of armbands by students to protest the Vietnam War was constitutionally protected speech because it was political speech. Political speech is at the heart of the First Amendment and, thus, can only be prohibited if it "disrupts" educational process.

16. Morse v. Frederick (2007) The case was significant because it ruled:
Students have no right to free speech in the adult context, and the decision in Tinker deserves to be struck out completely.
The decision to allow schools to restrict speech should be applicable to pro-drug content only and broader political speech should enjoy full freedom.

17. Kurtzman v. Lemon (1971)
Do statutes that provide state funding for non-public, non-secular schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

18. Kurtzman v. Lemon (1971)
Rhode Island and Pennsylvania both established statutes that allowed the state to pay for non-secular and non-public schools.
The supreme court determined that the statutes were unconstitutional due to excessive entanglement in the separation of church and state. In favor of Lemon.

19. Kurtzman v. Lemon (1971)
Decided that governments could only give to schools for non-religious reasons. Established the lemon test that determined the constitutionality of future funding.

20. Kurtzman v. Lemon (1971)
Impact: The decision of this case is very important because the Lemon test is applied to all state funding and religious laws to determine if they are constitutional.

21. Miller v. California(1973) “Obscenity Test”
The question in the court was: Is the sale and distribution obscene materials by mail protected under the First Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantee?

22. Miller v. California
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that obscene materials did not enjoy first Amendment protection.

23. Miller v. California
In conclusion the case Miller v. California, Miller was found guilty of misdemeanor because the material was deemed unsuitable for the general population.

24. Schenck v. United States (1919) “Clear and Present Danger & Speech”
What? Charles Schenck was the general secretary for the Socialist Party, which opposed the drafting of the military. Schenck and his party printed pamphlets during WW1 that stated for people to resist being drafted into the military.
When & Where? Washington January 9, 1919
Why? Schenck believed the government had no right to draft people against their own will and that the espionage act violated the freedom of speech. Compared drafting to slavery.(13 ammendment)

25. Schenck v. United States
The Decision - On March 3 the court issued a unanimous ruling upholding the Espionage. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., argued: “Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent.”
Which means Schenck right of the 1st amendment was not upheld because it caused danger in time of war.

26. Schenck v. United States
The importance of this case is to show that rights can be taken away when danger is purposely present. For example a person can not yell “fire” in a movie theatre to cause panic.

27. Plaintiff: The State of Texas Defendant: Gregory Lee Johnson
Texas v. Johnson
June 21, 1989
Plaintiff: The State of Texas
Defendant: Gregory Lee Johnson
Date of Event: August 20-23, 1984
Date of Case: June 21, 1989
Amendment at Hand: 1st Amendment

28. Texas v. Johnson Continued
Johnson was tried in Texas and convicted of desecration of a Texas statute. He appealed and the case was brought to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled a close decision of 5-4 that Johnson’s actions were protected under the 1st amendment. His actions were classified as a form of “symbolic speech”. Johnson was released after his success in the trial.

29. Texas v. Johnson Continued
The 1984 Republican Convention was held in Dallas, Texas. Gregory Lee Johnson decided to burn an American flag out of protest to President Reagan’s Administration. After Johnson’s actions, he was arrested and charged with violation of a Texas law that prevents the desecration of certain objects such as the American flag that could cause others to become angry.

30. 2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.