Schenck v. United States (1919)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Charles Schenck was convicted under the Espionage Act for distributing leaflets urging resistance to the military draft during World War I. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction, ruling that free speech could be restricted if it posed a “clear and present danger” to significant government interests, such as wartime recruitment.

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Benjamin Gitlow, a socialist, was convicted under New York’s criminal anarchy law for publishing a manifesto advocating revolutionary socialism. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction but, for the first time, held that the First Amendment’s free speech protections apply to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
A group of students in Des Moines, Iowa, wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. School officials suspended them. The Supreme Court ruled that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The suspensions violated the First Amendment.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag during a political protest at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas. He was convicted under a Texas law banning flag desecration. The Supreme Court struck down the law, ruling that flag burning is protected symbolic speech under the First Amendment.

3) Why It Mattered
This was a landmark affirmation of free speech, holding that the government cannot prohibit expression simply because it is offensive or unpopular.

Communications Decency Act § 230 (1996)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (47 U.S.C. § 230)

2) Why It Was Done
Enacted as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, § 230 was designed to promote the growth of the internet by shielding online platforms from liability for most user-generated content while allowing them to moderate harmful material in “good faith.”

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Before § 230, online platforms risked being treated as publishers and held liable for user posts. This threatened free expression and innovation online. The law built on First Amendment free speech protections but gave platforms explicit legal immunity.

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the Supreme Court opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Lorie Smith, owner of 303 Creative, a web design company, wanted to expand into wedding websites but objected to creating designs for same-sex marriages, citing religious beliefs. Colorado’s anti-discrimination law prohibited businesses from denying services based on sexual orientation. The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that forcing Smith to create such websites would violate the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause by compelling her to express a message she disagreed with.