# data[].attributes.headline
Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee, 1982

# data[].attributes.subject
Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee, 1982

# data[].attributes.body
This case found that nobody could be fired due to their political association or even what party they side with

# data[].attributes.body
The state requested that NAACP disclosed all the names of the people who are enlisted in NAACP and when they refused they were fined. The Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional due to no legitimate reason for the need of the names to be disclosed.

# data[].attributes.body
Right of Association include the right to join with others to promote political, economic, and social causes meaning that it is not needed to disclose the names for the petitions that are signed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Freedom of expression, association and assembly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Script Editors: Cathleen Berger, Aditi Gupta, Jonathan Jacobs Director/Producer: Meghna Gupta Animation and Design: Gat Powell Contributors: Cathleen Berger, Valeria Betancourt, Aditi Gupta, Jonathan Jacobs, Andrew Puddephatt, Francisco Vera Project Coordination: Daniela Schnidrig Voiceover Artist: Brigid Lohrey

# data[].attributes.body
The 1st and 14th amendments do not give people the right to trespass onto private property in order to express a political view which means that assembling on such territory is not suggested.

# data[].attributes.body
Under some circumstances it is reasonable for there to be a prohibition of political speech by creating free speech zones in attempt to to balance free speech and public gatherings without protestr interference.

# data[].attributes.body
Government can make reasonable laws that cover time, place, and manners of assemblies. These laws must be more than reasonable and have to be precisely drawn and fairly administered and must be content neutral. While the court has said that governments cannot limit the content of political speech, they can still prohibit the time and place of these conversations reasonably.

# data[].attributes.body
The Constitution protects the people's rights to assemble peacefully to organize to influence public policy as well as protecting the people's right to petition - bring their views to official's attention through letters, advertisements, lobbying, marches, and parades - so long as they are peaceful

# data[].attributes.headline
Miller v. California, 1973 - Three Part Test

# data[].attributes.subject
Miller v. California, 1973 - Three Part Test

# data[].attributes.body
There was a three-part test that was set in place to define obscenity. A material can be considered obscene if 1) it incites lust, 2) it depicts in a patently offensive way a form of sexual conduct or 3) lacks any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A little fun comprised of sleights and ideas from The Rub-a-dub Deluxe Suite.

# data[].attributes.body
Federal and State laws have made the dissemination of obscene material illegal and have found that obscenity is not protected under the 1st and 14th amendments but have had issues with finding what is obscene and what isn't due t moral standards changing from time to time.

# data[].attributes.body
Most commercial speech is considered constitutional but there is still some aspect of commercial speech that is not protected which prohibits false and misleading advertisements, and the advertisements of illegal goods and services. There is still the right for government to forbid the advertising that is neither false or misleading. In 1970, Congress banned cigarette ads on radio and television and this was further extended in 1986 to ban chewing tobacco and snuff.

# data[].attributes.body
State and Federal courts ave have generally rejected arguments regarding news media and there are no laws deeming there is a sense of confidentiality especially when there is a court jury or committee. There is no confidentiality and there is no exemption of the law. Every state except for Wyoming now has passed the shield laws which states that reporters have some protection against having to disclose the sources or reveal confidential information in legal proceedings.

# data[].attributes.body
Prior Restraint is the ability for the government to curb an idea before it is expressed due to extreme situations.

# data[].attributes.headline
Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman

# data[].attributes.subject
Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman

# data[].attributes.body
In Texas v. Johnson there was a 5-4 majority rule that the State authorities had violated a protester's rights by prosecuting Johnson for setting fire to the American flag during an anti-Reagan demonstration. This then prompted the Flag Protection Act in 1989 which was struck down in a 5-4 majority vote in the case United States v. Eichman where the decision was based on the same as the Johnson case.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 1969

# data[].attributes.subject
Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 1969

# data[].attributes.body
Several students had decided to make a statement by wearing black armbands to dramatize their opposition to the Vietnam War and had been suspended by their school district. The Supreme Court had found that there was an overstep by the authorities and that there was a violation in the students' right to free expression due to the fact that there was no disruption in school.

# data[].attributes.body
Four young men were convicted of violating a federal law because they had burned their draft cards as an act of protest of the war in Vietnam, the Court ruled that it was unconstitutional and that there is not a blanket protection by the 1st Amendment when in concern of expression.

# data[].attributes.body
Picketing involves the patrolling of of a business site by workers who are on strike in attempt to inform the public of a controversy and to advise and persuade people not to deal with the firm that is involved.

# data[].attributes.body
Symbolic Speech is the expression by conduct in which a person can "say" something with a certain face or notation, or by carrying a sign or wearing an armband.

# data[].attributes.body
The Court had ruled to overturn a Smith Act conviction of several Communist Party Leaders because the mere urging of a belief in something is different than the proactive act of urging someone to do something could not be considered illegal.

# data[].attributes.body
A short period before World War II, the Smith Acts were put in place making it a crime for anybody to advocate the violent overthrow of the US Government or to distribute any type of material that could be teaching someone of how to overthrow the government, or to enact with a group who's aim is as stated.

# data[].attributes.body
Sedition is the crime of attempting to overthrow the government by force or disrupting the lawful activities with acts of violence. Seditious Speech is the unconstitutional advocating, or urging to commit sedition.

# data[].attributes.body
Some forms of expression are not protected under the Constitution, such as slander and libel. No person has unrestricted rights of free speech and press. Libel is the false and malicious use of printed words, and slander is the false and malicious use of spoken words.

# data[].attributes.headline
Fundamental Purposes of Free Speech and Press

# data[].attributes.subject
Fundamental Purposes of Free Speech and Press

# data[].attributes.body
There are 2 fundamentally important purposes behind the guarantees of free press and free speech. These purposes include 1)To guarantee people the right to free expression, both in spoken and written word and all different types of communication and 2) to guarantee all people a wide range of discussion of public affairs

# data[].attributes.headline
Allowances and Dis-allowances of the Free Exercise Clause

# data[].attributes.subject
Allowances and Dis-allowances of the Free Exercise Clause

# data[].attributes.body
The Free Exercise Clause grants people the ability to practice any religion they want, and no law is permitted to hinder that right. This is limited when it can possibly endanger the lives of others or violate criminal laws or any of the other Amendments. The Court has held that there is no requirement of vaccinations due to religions, or for businesses to close on Sundays, and have stated that the Federal Government can still draft people who have religious objections. On the contrary there are laws that were confirmed as unconstitutional such as having to have a license before soliciting money for a religious cause, and the Amish children are not required to continue school after 8th grade.

# data[].attributes.body
The Court has found that it is okay for there to be student held clubs that operate under a religion in public school so long as there is no sponsorship or influence in the process by any adult. There is no requirement of prayer that is allowed without being considered unconstitutional.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Wall, "The Supreme Court, Religion and Public Schools"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A look at the landmark cases that have helped defined the role religion can play in public schools. Check out www.hiphughes.com for hundreds of social studies videos, teachertips and other fun stuff!

# data[].attributes.headline
Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause

# data[].attributes.subject
Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause

# data[].attributes.body
The 1st Amendment states the 2 guarantees of free religion including an establishment of religion (Establishment Clause) and that any arbitrary interference by government with free exercise (Free Exercise Clause) Came from opposition of government-established churches and is now instated into the 14th amendment

# data[].attributes.headline
Separation of Church and State and "wall of separation"

# data[].attributes.subject
Separation of Church and State and "wall of separation"

# data[].attributes.body
The Establishment Clause sets up what Jefferson referred to as a wall of separation between church and state. There is much controversy of where limits are when talking of religion. Government has done much to encourage religion and churches and all churches are separate from government, but there are instances such as opening Congress with a prayer or taking oaths under God where there is slight indication of religion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(Credit goes to Bishop Conley of Lincoln & his friend Harry Biltz for 1st coining the word "atheocracy.") The "wall of separation between church and state" doesn't mean the public square should be free from the presence or influence of faith.

# data[].attributes.body
An Oregon compulsory law was in place that required parents to send their children to public school as a way to keep them from going to private schools or church-relate schools. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional.

# data[].attributes.headline
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971 - The Lemon Test

# data[].attributes.subject
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971 - The Lemon Test

# data[].attributes.body
A Pennsylvanian law stated that reimbursed private schools in order to pay for teacher's salaries, textbooks, and other materials needed in nonreligious courses. The Supreme Court ruled that the Establishment Clause was designed to prevent sponsorship, financial support, or deliberate involvement in a religious activity.
This led to The Lemon Test which decides whether or not a state law amounts to an "establishment" of religion. This standard states that the law must have 1) a secular, non religious purpose, 2)neither advance nor inhibit religion, and 3) not foster an excessive amount of religion being mixed with government

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is the Lemon Test? This video discusses the so-called Lemon Test to determine whether a law violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. uslawessentials.com uslawessentials.com/blog

# data[].attributes.body
The Court ruled that t was unconstitutional to recite a prayer even voluntarily due to the use of a prayer written by the New York State Board of Regents. They held that the Establishment of religion didn't mean that prayer was permitted to be recited at all n any form of government.