The Supreme Court of the United States held in its landmark case, McGowan v. Maryland ( 1961 ), that Maryland's blue laws violated neither the Free Exercise Clause nor the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by the states.

The need for a compelling interest was narrowed in Employment Division v. Smith,, which held no such interest was required under the Free Exercise Clause regarding a law that does not target a particular religious practice.

* Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment

They objected on the grounds that their rights to freedom of religion as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment were being violated by such requirements.

However, in overruling Gobitis the Court primarily relied on the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Free Exercise Clause.

The first part of the above amendment which reads " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion " is known as the Establishment Clause, while the second part (" or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ") is known as the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Despite their attempts to present a clear stance on school-sponsored religious activity, Engel, Abington, and the cases for which these serve as precedent are cited by some proponents of school prayer as evidence of a contradiction between the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.

While the Establishment Clause proscribes the state-sponsorship of religion, the Free Exercise Clause forbids state interference in individual religious exercise.

Regarding the Free Exercise Clause, the courts have consistently stated that students ' setting forth of religious views through prayer cannot be forbidden unless such activity can be shown to cause disruption in the school, yet it remains beyond the scope of the state to require such practice.

The US Supreme Court decision in Wallace v. Jaffree ( 1984 ) held that a moment of silence in schools for the purpose of individual prayer or meditation constituted a valid application of the Free Exercise Clause, while a moment of silence for the clear intended purpose of a state-approved devotional activity constituted a violation of the Establishment Clause.

*" Original Intent and The Free Exercise of Religion " Joseph A. Zavaletta, Jr., Esq

* Sherbert v. Verner, a United States Supreme Court case involving the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution

Although e. g. in the United States the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment states that " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ", in Reynolds v. United States the U. S. supreme court decided that religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment.

Calvin College exerts its right under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to discriminate on the basis of religious criteria in its hiring, personnel practices and admissions.

" The phrase " separation of church and state ," which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

" Separation of church and state " ( sometimes " wall of separation between church and state ") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson ( in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists ) and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

This law reinstated the Sherbert Test, which was set forth by Sherbert v. Verner, and Wisconsin v. Yoder, mandating that strict scrutiny be used when determining if the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, guaranteeing religious freedom, has been violated.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment states that Congress shall not pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

* MP3-A Soldier's Prayer-by An Exercise In Free Will ( ChilliDoggMusic. com ) – inspired by Matt Maupin.

In 1998, in his role as the American Muslim Council Liaison to the Coalition for Free Exercise of Religion, he testified before the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights, supporting the need for federal protection of religious freedom after the City of Boerne v. Flores case decided by the United States Supreme Court

The 1940 decision in Cantwell v. Connecticut was the first Supreme Court decision to apply the First Amendment's religious protections to the states, that case focusing on the so-called Free Exercise Clause.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court " sustained respondents ' claim that application of the compulsory school-attendance law to them violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof "), these two clauses make up what are called the " religion clauses " of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court never ruled on the constitutionality of any federal law regarding the Free Speech Clause until the 20th century.

According to Schenck, the Espionage Act violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U. S. ___ ( 2010 ), the Court ruled that the BCRA's federal restrictions on electoral advocacy by corporations or unions were unconstitutional for violating the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Category: United States Free Speech Clause case law

Category: United States Free Speech Clause case law

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 ( 1943 ), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected students from being forced to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance in school.

Category: United States Free Speech Clause case law

Category: United States Free Speech Clause case law

Category: United States Free Speech Clause case law

Category: United States Free Speech Clause case law

Category: United States Free Speech Clause case law

Category: United States Free Speech Clause case law

Category: United States Free Speech Clause case law

Category: United States Free Speech Clause case law

Category: United States Free Speech Clause case law

In Moore v Attorney-General of the Irish Free State AC 484 ( PC ) the right of the Oireachtas to abolish appeals to the Privy Council was challenged as a violation of the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty.

In Byrne v Ireland, the Irish Supreme Court declared that sovereign immunity had not survived the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922, and that accordingly the state could be sued for and held vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of its servants and agents.

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition,, further upheld these rights by invalidating the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, holding that, because the act " rohibit child pornography that does not depict an actual child ..." it was overly broad and unconstitutional under the First Amendment and that:

The U. S. Supreme Court's decision in Davis v. Federal Election Commission, however, cast considerable doubt on the constitutionality of these provisions, and in 2011 the Supreme Court held that key provisions of the Arizona law – most notably its matching fund provisions – were unconstitutionalal in Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Free Enterprise Club PAC v. Bennett.

* Move To Amend and Free Speech for People are coalitions launched following the US Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision that aim to overturn the Court's advocacy for " corporate free speech " via Amendment.

A lawsuit ( Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board ) was filed in 2006 challenging the constitutionality of the PCAOB.

Free Composition ( Der freie Satz ), v. 1.

* Scientology v. the Internet: Free Speech & Copyright Infringement on the Information Super-Highway, Skeptic vol.

In the recent Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition case, however, the Court held that sexually explicit material that appears to depict minors might be constitutionally protected.

In American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland, plaintiffs American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, joined by various publishers, retailers, and web site operators, sued Ohio ’ s Attorney General and Ohio county prosecutors in United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The limits of federal power were tested in the Board of Commerce case ( which established the national emergency aspect of peace, order and good government ), Fort Frances Pulp and Paper v. Manitoba Free Press ( which greatly extended it ), and Toronto Electric Commissioners v. Snider ( which held that such emergencies could not be used to unreasonably intrude on the provinces ' property and civil rights power ).

The Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. United States found that the government had not made a successful case for prior restraint of Free Speech, but a majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act in publishing the documents.

The Free Software Foundation Europe ( FSFE ) uses a definition which is based on the European Interoperability Framework v. 1, and was extended after consultation with industry and community stakeholders.

They've been involved also with the following organisations: Free Tibet, Royal National Institute for the Deaf ( RNID ), Cancer Research UK, Byrne for Heart Attack and asthma awareness campaigns, Daily Star ’ s Reclaim Our Streets crusade, Filan for Irish Red Cross ( by Sligo Rover's Showgrounds football match ), Byrne for Oxfam's East Africa Famine appeal ( by Celtic v Manchester United football match ), Filan and Byrne for Soccer Aid, JP McManus Invitational Pro-Am, One World Beat, Egan for Strandhill Indonesian Relief Fund ( SIRF, in aid of the South Asian tsunami victims ), World Food Programme ( WFP ), Muscle Help Foundation, Feehily for Aware, Byrne for Children ’ s Hospice South West ( by Truro charity football match ), Global Breast Cancer Awareness Campaign and Real Man campaign.