i bought a box of cocks and it was fun i bought a box of cocks and it was fun i bought a box of cocks and it was fun i bought a box of cocks and it was fun i bought a box of cocks and it was fun i bought a box of cocks and it was fun i bought a once upon a time and the if and it waste first amendment of the US Constitution states that “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… .” . Ever since the beginning of the Supreme Court, cases have come up time and time again that challenge this amendment, or require the justices to interpret this amendment. Looking back at all the cases heard, it is obvious that the US Supreme Court have changed their interpretations many times. As society has changed, and the public perception of freedom of speech has changed, so has the way the Supreme Court looks at the first amendment.
It seems that in one case, their granting freedom of speech and claiming it is absolute, and then the next case their taking free speech away, saying that all rules have exceptions. The best way to analyze the inconsistencies or the US Supreme Court’s decisions in free speech cases is to look into key cases on both the Supreme Court granting, and limiting free speech. Three main cases of the least century in which they limited free speech were Schenck v. United States (1919), CBS v. Democratic National Committee (1973), and City Council of Los Angeles v. Vincent.
In Schenck v. United States, Schenck and Company were convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917, a Federal law which, among other things, made it a crime to obstruct government draft recruiting and enlistment efforts. Schenck printed 15, 000 leaflets, many of which were to be mailed to draftees. On one of the sides of this leaflet were printed (among others) the following phrases: ‘Do not submit to intimidation’, ‘Assert your Rights’, and ‘If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain.’ Schenck was arrested for passing along this information. The judge who wrote the decision, Judge Holmes, wrote The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.
When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. It seems that any way you look at this case, it is violating the free speech. Today, this case is referred to as the ‘falsely shouting fire in a [theater’ case. But what does doing that have to do with notifying Americans of their god-given constitutional rights? It seems that in this case, Schenck was deprived of his free speech rights. In CBS v. Democratic National Committee, the Business Executives’ Move for Vietnam Peace (BEM) complained to the that a radio station Washington, DC had refused to sell it time to broadcast a series of one-minute spot announcements expressing BEM views on Vietnam.
Four months later, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) asked the FCC for a ruling in this case, since it intended to purchase time from radio and television stations to present party views, but knew that its prior experience in this area made it clear that it would ‘encounter considerable difficulty – if not total frustration of its efforts’ without a ruling. Both parties lost – the FCC rejected the notion of the right of an individual or organization to air ‘editorial advertisements’ on the public airwaves. This decision, however, was reversed by a Court of Appeals, a decision which was itself reversed by the Supreme Court in this famous case. This is a case which illuminates all too clearly the nature of First Amendment ‘rights’ that we are supposed to have as Americans. Looking at this case, it seems that the free speech rights of a broadcaster is snuffing out the free speech rights of others.
This is another case where people are being deprived of their free speech rights. In March 1979, Roland Vincent was a candidate for election to the Los Angeles City Council. A group of his supporters entered into a contract with a political sign service to fabricate and post signs with Vincent’s name on them. They produced many colorful cardboard signs and attached of cocks and it was fun i bought a box of cocks and it was fun i bought a box of cocks and it was fun i bought a box of cocks and it was fun i bought a box of cocks and it was fun i bought a box of cocks and it was fun i bought a box of cocks and it was fun i bought a box of cocks and it was fun i bought a box of cocks and it was fun i bought a box of cocks and it was fun i bought a box of cocks and it was fun i bought a box of cocks and it was fun i bought a box of cocks and it was fun i bought a box of cocks and it was fun i bought a box of cocks and it was fun i bought a box of cocks and it was fun.