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.

danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress

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 them to utility poles at various locations. The signs' message was: 'Roland Vincent - City Council.' Acting under the authority of section 28.04 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, Municipal employees removed all posters attached to utility poles and similar objects covered by the ordinance, including Vincent's signs. Vincent brought this case all the way to the Supreme Court, there the Supreme Court held that a municipal ordinance prohibiting the posting of signs on public property was not unconstitutional (once again reversing a Court of Appeals decision). Consequently, a hard working political candidate does not have the right to advertise his candidacy in a particular manner. This case also brushes up on the Tenth Amendment, that a power not exercised by the State flows to the "people" (and not a city). Relevant to this case, in Schenck v. United States, reviewed above, Judge Stevens that "It has been clear since this Court's earliest decisions concerning the freedom of speech that the state may sometimes curtail speech when necessary to advance a significant and legitimate state interest". Oddly enough, the founding fathers never said a word about "curtailing speech" in the first amendment. Yet another case where the conservative court deprived a man of his free speech rights.

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

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 p. 55

City Council of Los Angeles v. Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 p. 791

has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a

Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, Judge Holmes, President Truman, Texas Johnson, DNC FCC, Anarchy Law, Court Court, City Council, Stevens Court's, free speech, Espionage Act, supreme court, freedom speech, schenck united, speech rights, free speech rights, national committee, democratic national committee, democratic national, los angeles, free speech granted, united 249, united 249 47, 249 47, deprived free speech,
Approximate Word count = 2170
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page double spaced)