Specific Court Cases

In this case, the Supreme Court reasoned that because the speech Chaplinsky was using were "fighting words", which are words that directly harm the target, the state was within its power to prevent Chaplinsky from further threatening peace and order.

This is specifically interesting because that sounds suspiciously similar to the definitions given to hate speech, meaning a state would be within its right to suppress hate speech under this ruling.

Paul Cohen, a 19-year-old, was charged with "maliciously and willfully disturbing the peace" after publicly wearing a jacket with the words "FUCK THE DRAFT. STOP THE WAR." written on the back. The Supreme Court ruled that his arrest was a violation of the First Amendment because there was no proof that his jacket would encourage people to act and arresting him violated his freedom to express emotion and freedom to express ideas.

Joseph Frederick held up a sign that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" at a school-supervised event and as a repercussion, the sign was confiscated for promoting illegal drug use and he was suspended for ten days. The Supreme Court ruled that this punishment did not violate his free speech rights granted by the First Amendment because, while students do have the right to political speech in school, it does not extend to pro-drug messages, which go directly against the school's mission of discouraging drug use. 

This links back to, while you have free speech, if you violate the social contract by encouraging something that is considered a social taboo in certain spheres, such as illegal drug use, you can be punished accordingly without your rights being violated.

This is quite an interesting case.

The family members of the deceased marine, Matthew Snyder, filed a lawsuit against members of Westboro Baptist Church for inflicting emotional distress at Snyder's funeral by displaying signs that read "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" and "F*g Soldiers". The Supreme Court, in agreement with the U.S. Court of Appeals, reasoned that the protesters were protected by the First Amendment for religious belief as well as freedom of speech. 

The one dissenting opinion, from Justice Samuel Alito, argued that " Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case. "