Here are some favorites I did for my American Politics course:

Schenck v. United States (1919)
For: Defendant Charles Schenck, a socialist, had violated the Espionage Act of 1917 by mailing leaflets informing World War I draftees to eschew military service. The Espionage Act had specifically made it illegal to interfere with the military or their activities during wartime. Since, Schenck did so, his conviction should be upheld. According to the Supreme Court, he had created “clear and present danger” and therefore his speech was not protected.

Against: Congress’ Espionage Act was unconstitutional because it violated free speech rights protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, which reads, “Congress shall make no law…. abridging the freedom of speech.” Since, the act Schenck violated is in itself a violation of the law his conviction should have been overturned.

My Opinion: Even though, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction, I believe he should not have faced any imprisonment. The Espionage Act was invalid because it was illegal from the start. Schenck’s free speech did not create a “clear and present danger” to me and therefore it should be legal. Ultimately, the act was merely a factor of the Red Scare that swept the first half of the 20th Century, with the intention of jailing socialists, communists, and anarchists.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)
For: In protest of President Ronald Reagan and the American culture as a whole, defendant Gregory Lee Johnson burned the American flag at the 1984 Republican National Convention. Despite this being a tasteless form of expression to most Americans, freedom of speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution, includes symbolic speech, such as setting a flag ablaze.

Against: Johnson burned the American flag, a sensitive symbol of freedom for so many Americans. Although, he did not harm anyone, he should serve time in prison for such an offensive and insulting act of protest against our nation.

My Opinion: I agree wholeheartedly with the Supreme Court. Freedom of Speech means everyone is free to express themselves as long as they do not endanger others, even if you detest their speech. If such a law existed nationally, as it did in Texas, at the time, what would be the point of pledging allegiance to the flag? If the flag supposedly symbolizes freedom then that would include the right to burn it or do whatever you want with it. As horrible as that may sound to some, that is the point of freedom.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
For: The defendant Dollree Mapp was supposedly harboring a fugitive, so the police demanded entrance to her home and she refused because they did not have a warrant. Eventually they entered with a “warrant,” which was simply a piece of paper. They cuffed her up and searched the house, finding pornographic material. Possession of such material was illegal in Ohio. She was found innocent because the state of Ohio had used evidence seized illegally to convict her. The court said this violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Against: State courts should not have to abide by the exclusionary rule, which throws out illegally obtained evidence in court. Since 1914’s Weeks v. United States this was a standard in federal courts, but it was argued that it should not apply to state courts, thus making evidence against Mapp, even if illegally obtained, valid.

My Opinion: I agree with the Supreme Court and I think the exclusionary rule is a distinctive feature of our justice system. The police did not even find the fugitive they we’re looking for in the first place.

Chris