Richard Parker, Ph.D., is a professor emeritus of speech communication at Northern Arizona University. He is the editor of “Speech on Trial: Communication Perspectives On Landmark Supreme Court Decisions,” which received the Franklyn S. Haiman Award for distinguished scholarship in freedom of expression from the National Communication Association in 1994.
More Articles from this Author
Board of Trustees of State University of New York v. Fox (1989)
In Board of Trustees of State University of New York v. Fox (1989), the Supreme Court said a ban on private commerce in state university facilities was “‘narrowly tailored’” and thus valid under the First Amendment.
Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp. (1983)
Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp. (1983) invalidated a rule against mailing unsolicited contraceptive ads. The Court invoked First Amendment free-speech protection.
Brown v. Glines (1980)
Brown v. Glines (1980) said military service members have the right to petition Congress may not circulate petitions without approval from a base commander.
Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980)
Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980) clarified First Amendment protection of commercial speech, determining when it could be regulated.
Clear and Present Danger Test
In the 20th century, the Supreme Court established the clear and present danger test as the predominate standard for determining when speech is protected by the First Amendment.
Edenfield v. Fane (1993)
In Edenfield v. Fane (1993), the Supreme Court said direct solicitation of clients was within the First Amendment rights of certified public accountants.
Feiner v. New York (1951)
Feiner v. New York (1951) addressed the issue of whether speech that incites a “breach of the peace” constitutes a categorical exception to the First Amendment.
Frohwerk v. United States(1919)
Frohwerk v. United States (1919) upheld a conviction for an article criticizing World War I while also affirming that First Amendment rights do not disappear during wartime.
Gooding v. Wilson (1972)
Gooding v. Wilson (1972) limited the scope of the “fighting words” exception to the First Amendment and enhanced the development of the overbreadth doctrine.
Haig v. Agee(1981)
Haig v. Agee (1981) raised and answered First Amendment questions regarding the right to travel in order to prevent speech deemed harmful to national security.
Ibanez v. Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board (1994)
Ibanez v. Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board (1994) held that the First Amendment takes precedence over regulatory agencies in cases involving commercial speech.
Meese v. Keene (1987)
Meese v. Keene (1987) upheld the authority of the government to classify foreign films as propaganda. The Court held that the enabling statute did not abridge the First Amendment.
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990)
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.(1990) ruled that opinions can be defamatory and that no First Amendment shield for the expression of defamatory opinions is appropriate.
NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982)
NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982) ruled that an economic boycott constitutes a form of constitutionally protected expression akin to traditional means of communication.
Nike v. Kasky (2003)
Nike v. Kasky (2003) raised, but did not resolve, contemporary issues regarding First Amendment protection for corporate speech in matters of public concern.
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association (1978)
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association (1978) said that states can prohibit direct, face-to-face solicitation by attorneys without running afoul of the First Amendment.
Overbreadth
Overbreadth provides that a regulation of speech can sweep too broadly and prohibit speech protected by the First Amendment as well as non-protected speech.
Parker v. Levy (1974)
Parker v. Levy (1974) established for the first time the limits of free political expression usually protected under the First Amendment for those serving in the armed forces.
Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators’ Association (1983)
Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators’ Association (1983) used the public forum doctrine to define First Amendment rights granted on government-owned property.
Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico (1986)
The Court later reversed their stance in Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico (1986), which dealt with First Amendment rights of commercial speech.
Snepp v. United States (1980)
Snepp v. United States (1980) said requiring pre-publication review of books by government employees did not violate the First Amendment rights of the authors.
The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence
The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence was the first book to be censored by the government prior to publication. The courts said national security concerns trumped First Amendment rights.
United States v. Progressive Inc. (W.D. Wis.) (1979)
United States v. Progressive Inc. (W.D. Wis. 1979), which dealt with the First Amendment, is one of the few times the American press has been restrained from publishing.
Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942)
Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942) ruled that commercial speech is not protected by the First Amendment. It has made assessing commercial speech under the First Amendment harder.
Yates v. United States (1957)
Yates v. United States (1957) was one of the last cases involving the prosecution of American Communists and ruled that that the First Amendment protects advocacy of ideas.