While primarily about the right to travel, this case involved the denial of a passport to an artist due to his alleged Communist affiliations. The Court recognized that the right to travel is part of the "liberty" protected by the Fifth Amendment and that restrictions based on political beliefs or associations require due process.
In this case, the Court upheld the revocation of a former CIA agent's passport due to his activities abroad that allegedly harmed U.S. foreign policy. While the Court acknowledged the government's authority in matters of national security, it also recognized the tension between such authority and First Amendment protections, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny.
The Court ruled that the government could not prevent the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing classified documents detailing U.S. involvement in Vietnam. This decision reinforced the principle that the press has the right to publish information critical of government actions, even when those actions involve foreign affairs.
his case directly addressed the issue of criticizing foreign governments. The Court struck down a Washington, D.C., law that prohibited displaying signs critical of foreign governments within 500 feet of their embassies. The Court held that the law was a content-based restriction on political speech and violated the First Amendment. Justice O’Connor emphasized that the government does not have a compelling interest in protecting the dignity of foreign governments from criticism.
The Court held that the government could not require organizations to adopt the government's viewpoint as a condition of receiving federal funds. Specifically, it struck down a policy requiring organizations to explicitly oppose prostitution to receive funding for HIV/AIDS programs abroad, affirming that compelled speech violates the First Amendment.
This case established the "clear and present danger" test for determining when speech could be restricted. The Court held that speech creating a clear and present danger of significant evils that Congress has the power to prevent can be restricted.
This case refined the standard for regulating inflammatory speech. The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action. AKA Hatespeech
This case created the "Miller test" for obscenity, which assesses whether speech or materials are obscene and, therefore, unprotected.
This case established the "actual malice" standard for press reports about public officials or public figures to be considered defamation or libel.
his case held that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," and is notable for protecting students' rights to express themselves, as long as it does not disrupt school activities.
This case held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.
was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court under which prior restraint on publication was found to violate freedom of the press as protected under the First Amendment.
The Court allowed neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois—a community with a large population of Holocaust survivors—wearing swastikas.
A city ordinance banning cross burning and other symbols likely to arouse anger on the basis of race, religion, or gender was struck down.
The Court struck down a Virginia law that treated all cross burnings as automatically intended to intimidate.
The Court sided with the Westboro Baptist Church, which picketed military funerals with signs saying “God Hates F*gs” and other inflammatory slogans.
The Court struck down a law prohibiting the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks. This extended Matal v. Tam—the government cannot refuse speech based on its perceived offensiveness or immorality.
New York City required bands in Central Park to use city-provided sound equipment and technicians, citing noise complaints.
The ruling wasn’t about offensive lyrics directly, but it cemented that music—regardless of message—is entitled to First Amendment protection.
A town banned all live entertainment, which affected a bookstore offering nude dancing.
The Court struck down the ban, stating that live entertainment, including music, is protected expression.
Although about dance, the Court explicitly mentioned that music is protected artistic expression, regardless of content.
Miami-Dade officials tried to ban the 2 Live Crew album As Nasty As They Wanna Be as obscene.
The Eleventh Circuit overturned the obscenity ruling, finding that—even if vulgar—the music did not meet the strict Miller v. California obscenity test.
Confirmed that sexually explicit or vulgar lyrics in music are protected unless they are legally obscene (a very high bar).
The FCC restricted George Carlin’s “Filthy Words” monologue on public radio.
The Court allowed limited regulation of indecent speech on public airwaves during hours when children might be listening.
Established that broadcast music with offensive language can be restricted in broadcast contexts (radio/TV), but not banned outright.
Does not apply to concerts, recordings, or streaming services.
2 Live Crew made a sexually explicit parody of Roy Orbison’s Oh, Pretty Woman.
The Supreme Court ruled the parody was protected under the fair use doctrine.
Confirmed that parody songs—no matter how vulgar or offensive—can be protected artistic and political commentary.
The city banned drive-in theaters from showing films containing nudity visible from the street.
The Court said the government cannot ban expression simply because it is offensive to some viewers.
Reinforces that offensiveness alone is never enough to strip music lyrics of First Amendment protection.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.