Should The Supreme Court Case Of Southern Promotions, Ltd. V. Conrad

In the history of the Supreme Court, there have been many First Amendment cases that outline if exercises of free speech and expression are constitutional or unconstitutional. One of the most paramount 1st amendment cases is that of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). This significant case helped shape the extension of symbolic speech, as well as ensure the freedom of speech and expression to students in schools.

The court’s decision in the case of Scott v. Harris heavily affected police pursuit policy. Harris who was the citizen motorist was driving almost twenty miles over the speed limit when Deputy Scott began a vehicular pursuit. Due to his reckless driving, the officer sought to end the high-speed chase that endangers the lives of innocent bystanders. However, Deputy Scott was untrained in Precision Intervention Technique (PTI), so he interfered with vehicles speed by ramming the back of Harris’ car which caused him to lose control, going off of the road resulting in an accident. During the case the question of whether the deputy used excessive force because his action could constitute deadly force. Harris believed that his Fourth Amendment rights

Des Moines is an important case for free speech in the United States. It affirms that students don’t lose their rights when they go to school. However, it also affirmed that schools can limit speech that “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others” (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969). However, the Court has ruled that there are times that the school can limit speech. In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in Bethel v. Fraser that students can be disciplined for using vulgar and offensive language in school (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p. 25). This case differed from Tinker v. Des Moines because that case was about political speech or expression. Another example of where school can limit the First Amendment is school sponsored newspapers. This was affirmed by the Court in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988). That decision stated that schools can reasonably limit the content of school-sponsored newspapers (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p.

The jury in Alabama agreed with Sullivan and found that the libelous action was in breach of Constitutional protections of speech and press. The jury in the circuit court awarded Sullivan five hundred thousand dollars in damages. This was the initial ruling against the New York Times who had lost. Sullivan had claimed he was libeled in the advertisement called Heed Their Rising Voices. In the libel action claim Sullivan the third paragraph in the advertisement read as follows “In Montgomery, Alabama, after students sang “My country tis of thee” on state capitol steps, their leaders were expelled from school and, truckloads of police armed with shotguns and tear gas ringed the Alabama State College Campus. When the entire student body protested by

The case involving Birch & Davis International, Inc., and Warren M. Christopher, the United States Secretary of State was decided on September 13th, 1993. The case involved procurement procedures conducted by the Agency of International Development (Open Jurist). The issue centered on exclusion of bids made by Birch & Davis International, Inc. Birch challenged the exclusion to the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals and they decided that the actions taken by the agency were fair. The case got to the Federal level when Birch appealed the decision by the board.

The decision in this case seems to have left public school students’ free speech rights in an ambiguous state. The Justices in support of the majority opinion—Justices Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, and Scalia—were thus

Case number 1: Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), this was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with freedom of speech. The United States Supreme Court overturned a disturbing the peace

Sons of Confederate Veterans proposed a specialty plate designed that entailed the confederate flag. The message behind the confederate flag can be viewed as offensive to citizens. Sons of Confederate Veterans filed a suit against the Chairman and Board stating that it violated the Free Speech Clause. The District Court entered judgment but The Fifth Circuit reversed holding that Texas specialty plate designs are private speech and that the Board engaged in constitutionally forbidden viewpoint discrimination. Texas specialty plates constitutes government speech, the content in which the State is free to control, thus based on the dissenting Judge`s remarks, the State was entitled to refuse

In Scott v. School Bd. of Alachua County two Florida students in 2003 were suspended from school for displaying images of the Confederate flag. Both students were told countless times to stop displaying this symbol. One student flew a Confederate flag on the antenna of his truck while the other student wore a T-shirt with the image clearly displayed. The principal believed the Confederate images created an “unhealthy environment and could lead to a dangerous environment at school.” The students sued the school saying that their First Amendment rights were violated. They argued that under Tinker v. Des Moines

The issue of Tinker v. Des Moines ISD was that students were to wear black arm bands to school in protest of the Vietnam War; however the school warned that anyone wearing the armbands would be would be suspended, but the Tinker children wore their armbands to school (they were the only ones of the group to do so) and were suspended leading to Mr. and Mrs. Tinker filing a law suit claiming that the school violated the children's right to freedom of speech and expression. The court ruled against the school district saying that "students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates. In doing so the court protected what has come to be known as "symbolic speech." In the case of Engle v. Vitale, the Supreme Court ruled that prayers in schools were considered unconstitutional, leading to a ban of all prayers led by teachers in school, even if the prayer was considered voluntary, stating, in a way, that there was some sort of “separation of church and state” which is not true. Lastly, New York Times v. Sullivan focused more on the freedom of the press, ruling that “actual malice” must be proven to support a finding of libel against a public figure.

This case seeks to protect the right to “free speech,” as is granted to through the 1st amendment, and affirmed by the (insert court here), in regards to specialty or vanity license plates. The 1st amendment reads as follows:

On January, 23 1906 a white woman named Nevada Taylor was dropped off the bus station in Chattanooga, Tennessee at 6:30 p.m. only two and half blocks from her home. Little did she know she was being followed? A man grabbed her by the neck and drug her ten feet before throwing her over a fence. She screamed and struggled as he put a leather strap around her neck and threatened to cut her throat. Taylor accounts waking up about ten minutes later in torn and dirty clothes covered in bruises. Her doctor later confirmed she had been raped. She claimed to have never of saw the face of the attacker but he had a soft voice of a black man. During this time of prejudice, segregation and hatred towards Negros was just a way of life for the

The students spent a lot of time on the newspaper and were upset at the principal for taking the two articles out. They felt that censorship was a violation of their first amendment rights and they took the case to court. The Court disagreed with the students and said that if the school had a good reason to censor

The Supreme Court held that newspapers and theatrical productions are not protected from censorship under the First Amendment.

Unquestionably, Morse et. al. v. Frederick (2006) argues “[…] the school punished Frederick without demonstrating that his speech threatened substantial disruption” (Morse et. al. v. Frederick, 2006, p. 1). This argument from Morse et. al. v. Frederick (2006) demonstrates that court recognized it was a First Amendment violation on the school. However, Morse et. al. v. Frederick (2006) provides the decision from the Supreme Court stating “[…]