27 Cited authorities

U.S. v. Stevens
559 U.S. 460 (2010) Cited 1,143 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding law unconstitutional under First Amendment where "impermissible applications ... far outnumber[ed] any permissible ones"
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
376 U.S. 254 (1964) Cited 6,906 times 36 Legal Analyses
Holding that a public official or public figure can recover damages for defamation on a matter of public concern only if he proves that the speaker acted with actual malice
R.A.V. v. St. Paul
505 U.S. 377 (1992) Cited 1,611 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding the government may not "license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules"
Virginia v. Black
538 U.S. 343 (2003) Cited 1,020 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that the First Amendment protects the burning of a 25–foot cross at a Ku Klux Klan rally
Texas v. Johnson
491 U.S. 397 (1989) Cited 1,326 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that Johnson's conviction for burning the American flag violates the First Amendment
Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union
466 U.S. 485 (1984) Cited 1,616 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the clear-error standard "does not inhibit an appellate court's power to correct errors of law, including ... a finding of fact that is predicated on a misunderstanding of the governing rule of law"
Cohen v. California
403 U.S. 15 (1971) Cited 1,252 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a jacket bearing the words "Fuck the Draft" is protected speech
Brandenburg v. Ohio
395 U.S. 444 (1969) Cited 998 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that mere advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment, unless intended to incite it or produce imminent lawlessness, and rejecting the contrary rule in Whitney v. California , 274 U.S. 357, 47 S.Ct. 641, 71 L.Ed. 1095, as having been "thoroughly discredited by later decisions"
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
315 U.S. 568 (1942) Cited 1,980 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that the only type of language denied First Amendment protection is fighting words
Terminiello v. Chicago
337 U.S. 1 (1949) Cited 870 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that protected speech may not be abridged or censored short of “a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest”

The People, Respondent,v.Trevis D. Baker, Appellant. (Appeal No. 2)

27 Cited authorities

Holding law unconstitutional under First Amendment where "impermissible applications ... far outnumber[ed] any permissible ones"

Holding that a public official or public figure can recover damages for defamation on a matter of public concern only if he proves that the speaker acted with actual malice

Holding the government may not "license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules"

Holding that the First Amendment protects the burning of a 25–foot cross at a Ku Klux Klan rally

Holding that Johnson's conviction for burning the American flag violates the First Amendment

Holding that the clear-error standard "does not inhibit an appellate court's power to correct errors of law, including ... a finding of fact that is predicated on a misunderstanding of the governing rule of law"

Holding that a jacket bearing the words "Fuck the Draft" is protected speech

Holding that mere advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment, unless intended to incite it or produce imminent lawlessness, and rejecting the contrary rule in Whitney v. California , 274 U.S. 357, 47 S.Ct. 641, 71 L.Ed. 1095, as having been "thoroughly discredited by later decisions"

Holding that the only type of language denied First Amendment protection is fighting words

Holding that protected speech may not be abridged or censored short of “a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest”