landmark Supreme Court Cases

•  To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest). Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990). 

• "The First Amendment affords protection to symbolic or expressive conduct as well as to actual speech. 
• See, e.g., R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U. S., at 382; Texas v. Johnson, supra, at 405-406; United States v. O'Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 376-377 (1968); Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 505 (1969). . ." (Source:   

Virginia v. Black - Supreme Court Opinions | Sandra Day O'Connor Institute Digital Library (oconnorlibrary.org)

***

• Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
  West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

• Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
  Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

• To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
  Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).

• To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
  Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).

• To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
  Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977). 
• (see source: uscourts.gov)

***

• The protections afforded by the First Amendment, however, are not absolute, and we have long recognized that the government may regulate certain categories of expression consistent with the Constitution. See, e. g., Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 571-572 (1942) ("There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem").  Virginia v. Black - Supreme Court Opinions | Sandra Day O'Connor Institute Digital Library (oconnorlibrary.org)

First Amendment: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; 

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; 

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(Source: U.S. Constitution)

***

The First Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." 

The hallmark of the protection of free speech is to allow "free trade in ideas"-even ideas that the overwhelming majority of people might find distasteful or discomforting. 

Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting); see also Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989). 

("If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable"). 

Thus, the First Amendment "ordinarily" denies a State "the power to prohibit dissemination of social, economic and political doctrine which a vast majority of its citizens believes to be false and fraught with evil consequence." Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 374 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring) . . .

The First Amendment permits "restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas, which are 'of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.'" R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, supra, at 382-383 (quoting Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, at 572).

Thus, for example, a State may punish those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, at 572; see also R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, supra, at 383 (listing limited areas where the First Amendment permits restrictions on the content of speech). We have consequently held that fighting words-"those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction" -are generally proscribable under the First Amendment. Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15, 20 (1971); see also Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, at 572.  

• Virginia v. Black - Supreme Court Opinions | Sandra Day O'Connor Institute Digital Library (oconnorlibrary.org)

.

•  . . ."the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 447 (1969) (per curiam). 
• And the First Amendment also permits a State to ban a "true threat." Watts v. United States, 394 U. S. 705, 708 (1969) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord, R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, supra, at 388 
• ("[T]hreats of violence are outside the First Amendment"); Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U. S. 753, 774 (1994); Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western N.Y., 519 U. S. 357, 373 (1997)  

Virginia v. Black - Supreme Court Opinions | Sandra Day O'Connor Institute Digital Library (oconnorlibrary.org)

• To make or distribute obscene materials.
  Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).

• To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
  United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).

• To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. 
  Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).

• Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
  Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).

• Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
  Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

Source: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does

Disclaimer: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for use in educational activities only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on legislation.