Constitutional Law

Branzburg v. Hayes
The First Amendment's protection of press freedom does not give a reportorial privilege in court. Writing for the majority, Justice Byron White declared that the petitioners were asking the Court "to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy. This we decline to do." Justice White acknowledged the argument that refusing to recognize such a privilege would undermine the ability of the press to gather news, but wrote that "from the beginning of the country the press has operated without constitutional protection for press informants, and the press has flourished."
Florida Star V B.J.F
HELD: "Where a newspaper publishes truthful information which it has lawfully obtained, punishment may lawfully be imposed, if at all, only when narrowly tailored to a state interest of the highest order..."
R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul
The St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance was struck down both because it was overbroad, proscribing both "fighting words" and protected speech, and because the regulation was "content-based," proscribing only activities which conveyed messages concerning particular topics. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Minnesota reversed.
Roth V United States
Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, but more strictly defines what is considered "obscene".
Miller v. California
Obscene materials are defined as those that the average person, applying contemporary community standards, find, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest; that depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; and that, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
New York Times V United States
In order to exercise prior restraint, the Government must show sufficient evidence that the publication would cause a "grave and irreparable" danger.