Schenck v. United States

7 Citing briefs

  1. Smith et al v. Forest Laboratories LLC et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 55 MOTION to Dismiss . CORRECTED TO ADDRESS TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS ONLY. Document

    Filed February 1, 2016

    25 That a theater goer lit a match before truthfully yelling “fire” in order to clear out the theater in a panic would not render that communication protected speech. See Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919) (shouting “fire” in a crowded theater not protected under the First Amendment). Here, Defendants intended to cause an anticompetitive effect through their conduct in announcing withdrawal, and they did so.

  2. In the Matter of Barbara Lucia, Respondent,v.Board of Education of East Meadow Union Free School District, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed February 19, 2014

    Once again, as it did in Santer, the District analogizes the Union members' lawful parked-car picketing speech to "a man ... falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic" .; " , r (quoting Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919)) (Appellant's Brief at 26). This analogy is utterly inapt and must fail for several reasons.

  3. In the Matter of Richard Santer, Respondent,v.Board of Education of East Meadow Union Free School District, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed February 19, 2014

    Freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is an integral right of American life. However, the ability to exchange ideas and engage in discourse is not without limitation (see Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919); Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942); Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969); F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978)). For example, the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words” or true threats of violence (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire; Watts v. United States).

  4. In the Matter of Richard Santer, Respondent,v.Board of Education of East Meadow Union Free School District, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed February 19, 2014

    Appellant has posited an utterly inapt analogy (Appellant's Brief at 27) of Mr. Santer's lawful parked-car picketing speech to "a man ... falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic" (quoting Schenckv. United States, 249 U.S. 47,52 (1919)). Appellant's argument in this regard must fail for several reasons.

  5. Soto v. City of Cambridge

    Opposition re MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed May 29, 2015

    It has been clear since the Supreme Court’s earliest decisions concerning the freedom of speech that the government may sometimes curtail speech when necessary to advance a significant and legitimate state interest. See Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919). There are some purported interests—such as the desire to suppress support for a minority party or an unpopular cause, or to exclude the expression of certain points of view from the marketplace of ideas—that are so plainly illegitimate that they would obviously not pass constitutional muster.

  6. In the Matter of Barbara Lucia, Respondent,v.Board of Education of East Meadow Union Free School District, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed February 19, 2014

    Cir. 2003) ............................................................................... 24 Melzer v. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of New York, 336 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2003) ......................................................................... 19, 28 Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) ............................................................................................ 21 People v. Barr, 75 A.D.2d 14 (4th Dep’t 1980) ........................................................................... 26 Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968) ...................................................................................... 20, 21 Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987) .......................................................................... 20, 22, 28, 38 Reuland v. Hynes, 460 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 2006) ............................................................................... 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (CONTINUED) PAGE -v- Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) .............................................................................................. 26 Spence v. State, 418 U.S. 405 (1974) ............................................................................................ 23 Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) ............................................................................................ 23 United States v. Nat’l Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995) ................................................................................ 20, 22, 28 Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995) ............................................................................................ 30 ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS Appeal of Cuoco, SED Decision No. 12,582 (1991) ....................................................................... 30 City Sch. Dist. of the City of Elmira, SED Decision No. 12,394 (1990) ....................................................................... 30 Matter of Ea

  7. In the Matter of Richard Santer, Respondent,v.Board of Education of East Meadow Union Free School District, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed February 19, 2014

    ............ 17 Meaney v. Dever, 326 F.3d 283 (1st Cir. 2003) ............................................................................... 25 Melzer v. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of New York, 336 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2003) ......................................................................... 21, 30 Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) ............................................................................................ 22 People v. Barr, 75 A.D.2d 14 (4th Dep’t 1980) ........................................................................... 28 Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968) .....................................................................................passim Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987) .......................................................................... 21, 23, 30, 39 Reuland v. Hynes, 460 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 2006) ............................................................................... 30 Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) .............................................................................................. 27 Spence v. State, 418 U.S. 405 (1974) ............................................................................................ 24 Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) ............................................................................................ 24 v. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CONTINUED Page(s) CASES Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) ............................................................................................ 22 United States v. Nat’l Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995) .......................................................................... 21, 22, 23, 30 Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995) ............................................................................................ 32 ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS Appeal of Cuoco, SED Decision No. 12,582 (1991) ...............