(1919)
Petitioner: Charles Schenck (general secretary of the US Socialist Party)
Respondent:
United States
Facts:
This case dealt with freedom of speech, as well as the Espionage Act. Charles Schenck was arrested for violating the Espionage Act, by handing out papers asking men who were drafted to “resist military service.” The Espionage Act was put in place before WWI, and made it a crime to use information that would interfere with US armed forces or that promoted the enemy. Schenck argued that the Espionage Act was unconstitutional and he had simply used his freedom of speech in that situation.
Questions: Are Schneck’s actions protected by the free speech clause issued in the 1st amendment?
Decision: 9-0; Supreme Court decided that freedom of speech would be limited if someone spoke or wrote something that …show more content…
New York
(1925)
Petitioner: Benjamin Gitlow (socialist)
Respondent:
People of the state of New York
Facts:
Gitlow published a “communist manifesto” which demonstrated his views on socialism in America and was charged with wanting to dethrone the US government. He went on to stating that his speech had not started any reaction after his statements, and that he was just speaking and no “clear and present danger” was to occur. The 1st amendment gives citizens the right to free speech, including freedom to express oneself as long as the actions are legal.
Questions: Was the petitioner deprived of his constitutional right of freedom of expression?
Decision: 7-2; Gitlow was still found guilty but expanded free speech protections. The ruling basically determined that the New York state government misused their power but he was still found guilty. Benjamin was not protected under the 1st amendment, because of his anti-government speech.
Brown v. Board of Education I
(1954)
Petitioner: Oliver Brown, Mrs. Richard Lawton, Mrs. Sadie Emmanuel
Respondent:
Board of Education of Topeka Kansas