Teacher Guide: The Sedition Act of 1798
The Sedition Act of 1798 was the first great test of the First Amendment’s protection for the freedom of speech and press. Under the new law, Americans could face up to $2,000 in fines (nearly $42,000 in 2020 dollars) and two years in prison for criticizing a public official. Passed only seven years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the Sedition Act forced the young country to decide not just whether it was truly dedicated to freedom of speech, but also what that idea would even mean in a democratic republic.
How Trump and Nunes Use Defamation Lawsuits To Silence Their Critics
Public officials using libel suits as a weapon against the press is nothing new. In the time of Times v. Sullivan, southern officials had brought nearly $300 million in libel actions against the press. For reference, Nunes alone has brought just over $900 million in defamation claims in a twelve-month period.
Government Corruption, Public Employees’ Speech, and the First Amendment
Law Professor Helen Norton explains how a case currently pending for Supreme Court review could potentially expand First Amendment protection for public employees who report on government corruption and or speak as a public "citizen."
Breaking with Tradition, Supreme Court To Provide Live Audio of Oral Arguments
“Despite the justices' unwillingness to bring the modern technologies of video into the courtroom, the COVID-19 pandemic reveals how some communication technologies can change the culture of the proceedings and how the court communicates with the public,” Ron Collins said in response to the court's decision.
High School Classmate of Justice Kavanaugh Sues HuffPost for Defamation
An article written by Ashley Feinberg about Kavanaugh's high school class implied that Derrick Evans was implicated in the death of David Kennedy.
Supreme Court Ruling Allows Registration of “Immoral” or “Scandalous” Words
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a ban on registering words or symbols that are "immoral" or "scandalous." The case was brought by designer Eric Brunetti who created a clothing line in 1990 that prominently displayed the “FUCT” logo. Brunetti had been trying to obtain approval for a trademark since 2011, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has consistently denied his application. The agency contends that “FUCT” violates federal law that prohibits words that are “shocking” or “offensive” on trademarked material.
Supreme Court Rules That NYC Public Access Channel Is Not a Public Forum
The Supreme Court weighed in on a case over whether a public access channel should be considered a private actor or a public forum. In 2012, nonprofit Manhattan Community Access […]
Supreme Court Hears Trademark Case Centered On A Seemingly Offensive Word
The Supreme Court is weighing whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office acted unconstitutionally when it denied granting a trademark to a clothing line called “FUCT.” The case was brought by […]