# data[].attributes.headline
Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause// Section 2 

# data[].attributes.subject
Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause// Section 2 

# data[].attributes.body
In the First Amendment, has two guarantees of religious freedom, (1) " an establishment of religion" ( in the Established Clause), and (2) any arbitrary interference by government with the "the free exercise thereof" ( the Free Exercise Clause)

# data[].attributes.headline
Separation of Church and State and “wall of separation” // Section 2 

# data[].attributes.subject
Separation of Church and State and “wall of separation” // Section 2 

# data[].attributes.body
"Separation of church and state" is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
The Pierce v. Society Sisters case dealt with religion, but not the Establishment Clause. The Society of Sisters was an Oregon corporation which facilitated care for orphans, educated youths, and established and maintained academies or schools. This case was decided together with Pierce v. Hill Military Academy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Lemon, 1971 and the Lemon Test // Section 2

# data[].attributes.subject
Lemon, 1971 and the Lemon Test // Section 2

# data[].attributes.body
The Lemon v. Kurtzman case is discussed in more detail on the Constitution and Religion Page. One of the results of this case is the Lemon Test. The Lemon Test is used to determine if a law violates the 1st Amendment. The court introduced a three pronged known as the Lemon Test, (1) a law must have a secular, not religious purpose; (2) it must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and (3) it must not foster an "excessive entanglement" of government and religion.

# data[].attributes.body
In the Engel v. Vitale case, outlawed the use of prayer written New York law required public schools to open each day with the Pledge of Allegiance and a nondenominational prayer in which the students recognized their dependence upon God. The law allowed students to absent themselves from this activity if they found it objectionable. A parent sued on behalf of his child, arguing that the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Free Exercise Clause- allow and not allow // Section 2 

# data[].attributes.subject
Free Exercise Clause- allow and not allow // Section 2 

# data[].attributes.body
Constitutional guarantee of religion freedom is set out in the Constitution's Free Exercise Clause, which guarantees anyone the right to believe whatever he or she chooses to believe in matter of religion. No person has the absolute right to act as he or she chooses, however Free Exercise Clause does not give the right to violate criminal laws, or threaten community safety because it might be done by religion.

# data[].attributes.headline
What is the Court’s view of religion in school? // Section 2

# data[].attributes.subject
What is the Court’s view of religion in school? // Section 2

# data[].attributes.body
School districts may not endorse religious activities in school sponsored activities. What that means in practice is that schools may not give special treatment to believers nor special prominence to activities that highlight religion. The Establishment Clause, in other words, is the Constitutional device that prevents public entities like schools from taking sides with the faith-based community.

# data[].attributes.headline
Two fundamental purposes of the guarantees of free speech and press // Section 3

# data[].attributes.subject
Two fundamental purposes of the guarantees of free speech and press // Section 3

# data[].attributes.body
Two fundamental purposes are (1) to guarantee to each person a right of free expression, in spoken and the written word, and by all other means of communication, and (2) guarantee to all persons a wide- ranging discussion of public affairs.

# data[].attributes.body
No person has the right to libel or slander another. Libel is a false and malicious use of printed words, and slander is the false and malicious use of spoken words.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sedition and Seditious speech // Section 3

# data[].attributes.subject
Sedition and Seditious speech // Section 3

# data[].attributes.body
Seditious is a crime of attempting to overthrow of government, by force or to disrupt lawful activities by violent acts . It includes speech attacking basic institutions of government, including particular governmental leaders. Seditious speech is advocating or urging of such conduct, which is not protected by the first amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
After Congress passed the Smith Act in 1940, over President Franklin D. Roosevelt's veto, giving the president power to seize and operate privately owned war plants when an actual or threatened strike or lockout interfered with war production. The Act made it a criminal offense to advocate the violent overthrow of the government or to organize or be a member of any group or society devoted to such advocacy.

# data[].attributes.body
The Yates v. United States was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the First Amendment protected radical and reactionary speech, unless it posed a "clear and present danger."

# data[].attributes.body
Symbolic speech is a legal term in United States law used to describe actions that purposefully and discernibly convey a particular message or statement to those viewing it. Not all conduct amounts to symbolic speech, if it did murder or robbery could be excused on grounds that the person who committing something by doing so.

# data[].attributes.body
Involves the patrolling of a business site by workers who are on strike. Picketers attempt to inform the public of controversy and to persuade others not to deal with the firm involved.

# data[].attributes.body
is censorship imposed, usually by a government, on expression that prohibits particular instances of expression.

# data[].attributes.body
David O'Brien burned his draft card at a Boston courthouse. He said he was expressing his opposition to war. He was convicted under a federal law that made the destruction or mutilation of drafts card a crime. O' Brien aruged that the First Amendment protects " all modes of communication of ideas by conduct".

# data[].attributes.body
Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 1969. Tinker and others decided to wear black armbands throughout the holiday season and to fast on December 16 and New Year's Eve. The principals of the Des Moines school learned of the plan and met on December 14 to create a policy that stated that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, with refusal to do so resulting in suspension.Through their parents, the students sued the school district for violating the students' right of expression and sought an injunction to prevent the school district from disciplining the students. The district court dismissed the case and held that the school district's actions were reasonable to uphold school discipline. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision without opinion.

# data[].attributes.headline
Confidentiality and Shield Laws // Section 3

# data[].attributes.subject
Confidentiality and Shield Laws // Section 3

# data[].attributes.body
Shield laws are what gives reporters protection against being forced to disclose confidential information or sources in state court. In general, a shield law aims to provide the classic protection.

# data[].attributes.headline
Texas v. Johnson, 1989 and U.S. v. Eichman, 1990 // Section 3 

# data[].attributes.subject
Texas v. Johnson, 1989 and U.S. v. Eichman, 1990 // Section 3 

# data[].attributes.body
The case Texas v. Johnson, was United States Supreme Court case that invalidated a federal law against flag desecration as violating of free speech under the First Amendment. It was argued together with the case United States v. Haggerty.

# data[].attributes.body
Intellectual property is protected, including copyrights and trademarks. The Supreme Court has held that copyright laws can withstand a First Amendment challenge based on the freedom of speech. ... While commercial speech is protected, it is generally viewed as having “diminished protection”. What is not protected is

# data[].attributes.body
A Supreme Court decision, material is obscene, and hence not protected by the free-speech provision of the First Amendment if it has three elements: It must have prurient appeal, as decided by the average person applying the standards of the community. It must portray sexual conduct in an offensive way; and it must be lacking in serious artistic, literary, scientific, or political value.

# data[].attributes.headline
Miller, 1973 and the Three-Part Test // Section 3

# data[].attributes.subject
Miller, 1973 and the Three-Part Test // Section 3

# data[].attributes.body
Miller test, also called the three prong obscenity test, is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited. The decision by the United States Supreme Court wherein the court redefined its definition of obscenity from that of “utterly without socially redeeming value” to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." The three part test (1) "the average person applying contemporary community standards" finds that the work, taken as a whole. (2)"the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way", from of sexual conduct, and etc.(3)"the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary artistic, political, scientific value.

# data[].attributes.headline
Time, place, and manner rules // Section 4

# data[].attributes.subject
Time, place, and manner rules // Section 4

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or mannerrestrictions on speech.

# data[].attributes.body
Free speech zones are areas set aside in public places for the purpose of political protesting. Free speech zones have stirred controversy over the years.

# data[].attributes.headline
Assembly, Petition and what IS protected // Section 4

# data[].attributes.subject
Assembly, Petition and what IS protected // Section 4

# data[].attributes.body
To assemble, is to express their views. It is protected their right to organize to influence public policy whether it is in political parties, interest groups, or etc. Also protects the people right to petition, to bring their views to bring their attention of public officials by such varied means as written petitions, letters, or advertisements.

# data[].attributes.headline
Demonstrations on  private property // Section 4 

# data[].attributes.subject
Demonstrations on  private property // Section 4 

# data[].attributes.body
The Court has said that the 1st and 4th Amendment rights of assembly and petition do not give people the right to trespass on private property, even if its to express political views.

# data[].attributes.body
The right to form societies, clubs, and other groups of people, and to meet with people individually, without interference by the government.

# data[].attributes.body
brought a suit to the State Circuit Court of Alabama, challenging the NAACP for violation of a state statute requiring foreign corporations to qualify before doing business in the state. The NAACP, a nonprofit membership corporation based in New York, had not complied with the statute, as it believed it was exempt. The state suit sought both to prevent the Association from conducting further business within the state and, indeed, to remove it from the state.

# data[].attributes.body
State-sanctioned segregation of public schools was a violation of the 14th Amendment and was therefore unconstitutional. This historic decision marked the end of the "separate but equal" precedent set by the Supreme Court nearly 60 years earlier and served as a catalyst for the expanding civil rights movement during the decade of the 1950s.