https://padlet.com/imcgee6347/9kesbhbi4c6p6zrk en-us 2020-11-18 13:49:04 UTC 2026-01-17 00:45:34 UTC hello@padlet.com imcgee6347 https://padlet.com/imcgee6347/9kesbhbi4c6p6zrk/wish/936616911 - Argued in December 1962 
- Decided in February 1963.]]> 2020-11-18 13:53:39 UTC https://padlet.com/imcgee6347/9kesbhbi4c6p6zrk/wish/936616911 imcgee6347 https://padlet.com/imcgee6347/9kesbhbi4c6p6zrk/wish/936648437 - Chief of Justice:
* Potter Stewart
- Associate Justices:
* William Douglas
* Potter Stewart
* Tom Clark 
* Hugo Black 
* William Brennan Jr
* John Harlan II
* Potter Stewart Byron White 
* Arthur Goldberg

]]> 2020-11-18 13:59:39 UTC https://padlet.com/imcgee6347/9kesbhbi4c6p6zrk/wish/936648437 imcgee6347 https://padlet.com/imcgee6347/9kesbhbi4c6p6zrk/wish/936744767 - 187 black students were convicted in a magistrate's court of breach of the peace with putting together a peaceful protest at South Carolina's State Government. 
- In an 8-1 decision, the Court reversed the criminal convictions of the black students. 
- The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment allowed the Free Petition Clause to extend to the States infringed as well as the federal government. 
- Black high school and college students walked in groups of 15 to the South Carolina State grounds.
- The reason for the protest was to go against segregation. 

]]> 2020-11-18 14:16:46 UTC https://padlet.com/imcgee6347/9kesbhbi4c6p6zrk/wish/936744767 imcgee6347 https://padlet.com/imcgee6347/9kesbhbi4c6p6zrk/wish/936820339 Court of breach of the peace
The crowd of petitioners did not fight or create any violence during their protest. ]]> 2020-11-18 14:29:23 UTC https://padlet.com/imcgee6347/9kesbhbi4c6p6zrk/wish/936820339 imcgee6347 https://padlet.com/imcgee6347/9kesbhbi4c6p6zrk/wish/936852934 During this protest to end segregation, there was no violence or threats between Petitioners and Respondents. The only thing that the petitioners affected was slowing down traffic. ]]> 2020-11-18 14:34:55 UTC https://padlet.com/imcgee6347/9kesbhbi4c6p6zrk/wish/936852934 imcgee6347 https://padlet.com/imcgee6347/9kesbhbi4c6p6zrk/wish/936867557 The Supreme Court meant to overturn and ruled for the protestors. 
* Did the arrests and convictions of the marchers violate their freedom of speech, assembly, and petition for redress of their grievances as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?]]> 2020-11-18 14:37:20 UTC https://padlet.com/imcgee6347/9kesbhbi4c6p6zrk/wish/936867557 imcgee6347 https://padlet.com/imcgee6347/9kesbhbi4c6p6zrk/wish/942257049 Majority Opinion authored by Justice Potter Stewart
-It was under the Court to arrest and punish the students associated with the protest against segregation under the circumstances disclosed by the record.
- The states violated the rights to protect the students along with their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of petition. ]]> 2020-11-19 16:51:27 UTC https://padlet.com/imcgee6347/9kesbhbi4c6p6zrk/wish/942257049 imcgee6347 https://padlet.com/imcgee6347/9kesbhbi4c6p6zrk/wish/942336259 Dissenting Opinion
- A dissenting case known by Justice Clark is said, "“The question…seems to me whether a State is constitutionally prohibited from enforcing laws to prevent breach of the peace in a situation where city officials in good faith believe, and the record shows, that disorder and violence are imminent, merely because the activities constituting that breach contain claimed elements of constitutionally protected speech and assembly. To me, the answer under our cases is clearly in the negative.”
Concurring Opinions
-  A concurring opinion seen on Edwards v. South Carolina was that petitioners were convicted of offenses which led them to be arrested and physically hurt in any way and in South Carolina it was known as 'not susceptible in exact definition'  and they were convicted of evidence which just showed no more than a peaceful protest and trying to attract the community. 

]]> 2020-11-19 17:05:53 UTC https://padlet.com/imcgee6347/9kesbhbi4c6p6zrk/wish/942336259 imcgee6347 https://padlet.com/imcgee6347/9kesbhbi4c6p6zrk/wish/942432090 Edwards v. South Carolina was seen as 187 students who were in a peaceful protest which created a 'breach of peace' and the reason for the students being arrested was due to it being an unpopular viewpoint and was protected by the First Amendment. 

]]> 2020-11-19 17:22:43 UTC https://padlet.com/imcgee6347/9kesbhbi4c6p6zrk/wish/942432090 imcgee6347 https://padlet.com/imcgee6347/9kesbhbi4c6p6zrk/wish/942480279 The case Edwards v. South Carolina is known as a Judicial Activism with having the power of the judicial review with putting aside government acts rather than the refusal to strike acts down. What they did to the Supreme Court Case was arrest all the students and did not approve of their freedom of speech and the freedom of petition because of its unpopular viewpoint. ]]> 2020-11-19 17:31:29 UTC https://padlet.com/imcgee6347/9kesbhbi4c6p6zrk/wish/942480279