You are on page 1of 4


Samuel A. Alito
The Oyez Project, Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
available at: (

(last visited Wednesday, May 26, 2010).

• persistent and continues till he gets the answer to his question

• part of justice in Reagen administration
• Appellate judge
• very serious justice
• controversy in election because of values on abortion and "outside the

Stephen G. Breyer
The Oyez Project, Justice Stephen G. Breyer
available at: (

(last visited Wednesday, May 26, 2010).

• born on August 15, 1938 in San Francisco, California.

• worked hard to end governmental regulation of the airline industry.
• received a seat on the federal appeals court with Ronald Reagan as
• President Clinton appointed him as a supreme court justice
• refusing to answer questions relating to specific issues, arguing that he did
not wish to bias future cases.
• prefers to ask hypothetical questions.


Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire

The Oyez Project, Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire , 315 U.S. 568 (1942)
available at: (

(last visited Wednesday, May 26, 2010).

Jehovah's Witness, called a city marshal a "God-damned racketeer" and "a
damned fascist" in a public place. He was arrested and convicted
freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment?
No. In this case, Chaplinsky uttered fighting words, that "inflict injury or tend
to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

The Oyez Project, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell , 485 U.S. 46 (1988)
available at: (

(last visited Wednesday, May 26, 2010).

Hustler Magazine featured a "parody" of an advertisement, modeled after an

actual ad campaign, claiming that Falwell, a Fundamentalist minister and political
leader, had a drunken incestuous relationship with his mother in an
Does the First Amendment's freedom of speech protection extend to the
making of patently offensive statements about public figure
Yes. The Court added that the interest of protecting free speech, under the
First Amendment, surpassed the state's interest in protecting public figures from
patently offensive speech, so long as such speech could not reasonably
be construed to state actual facts about its subject.

Garcetti v Ceballos

The Oyez Project, Garcetti v. Ceballos , 547 U.S. ___ (2006)

available at: (

(last visited Wednesday, May 26, 2010).

Richard Ceballos, found that a sheriff misrepresented facts in a search warrant

written statement. Ceballos notified the attorneys prosecuting the case stemming
from that arrest and all agreed that the affidavit was questionable, but the D.A.'s
office refused to dismiss the case. Ceballos alleged that D.A.s in the office
retaliated against him for his cooperation with the defense, which he argued was
protected by the First Amendment. The district court ruled that the district
attorneys were protected by qualified immunity, but the Ninth Circuit reversed
and ruled for Ceballos, holding that qualified immunity was not available to the
defendants because Ceballos had been engaged in speech that addressed matters
of public concern and was thus protected by the First Amendment.
Should a public employee's purely job-related speech, expressed strictly
pursuant to the duties of employment, be protected by the First Amendment
simply because it touched on a matter of public concern, or must the speech also
be engaged in "as a citizen?"

In a 5-to-4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court

held that speech by a public official is only protected if it is engaged in as a
private citizen, not if it is expressed as part of the official's public duties.

Rankin v. McPherson
The Oyez Project, Rankin v. McPherson , 483 U.S. 378 (1987)
available at: (

(last visited Wednesday, May 26, 2010).

Ardith McPherson was a clerk in the Harris County, Texas constable's office.
After hearing on the office radio that there had been an attempt to assassinate
President Ronald Reagan, McPherson, who thought she was alone with one other
office worker, stated "if they go for him again, I hope they get him." Another co-
worker overheard the comment and reported it to the Constable, Walter H.
Rankin. Rankin subsequently fired McPherson.

Did the Constable's action infringe upon McPherson's freedom of speech

guaranteed by the First Amendment?

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that Rankin's interest in discharging

McPherson was outweighed by her rights under the First Amendment. The Court
held that McPherson's statement, when considered in context, "plainly dealt with
a matter of public concern." Her comment did not interrupt flow of the office.

New York Times v. Sullivan

The Oyez Project, New York Times v. Sullivan , 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
available at: (

(last visited Wednesday, May 26, 2010).

a full-page ad in the New York Times which alleged that the arrest of the Rev.
Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy
King's efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote.
Did Alabama's libel law, by not requiring Sullivan to prove that an advertisement
personally harmed him and dismissing the same as untruthful due to factual
errors, unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment's freedom of speech
and freedom of press protections?
The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all
statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when
statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in
reckless disregard of their truth or falsity)