MORSE v. FREDERICK
At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, Deborah Morse, the high school principal, saw students unfurl a banner stating “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS,” which she regarded as promoting illegal drug use. Consistent with established school policy prohibiting such messages at school events, Morse directed the students to take down the banner. When one of the students who had brought the banner to the event—respondent Frederick—refused, Morse confiscated the banner and later suspended him. The school superintendent upheld the suspension, explaining that Frederick was disciplined because his banner appeared to advocate illegal drug use in violation of school policy. Petitioner school board also upheld the suspension. Frederick filed suit under alleging that the school board and Morse had violated his First Amendment rights. The District Court granted petitioners summary judgment, ruling that they were entitled to qualified immunity and that they had not infringed Frederick’s speech rights. The Ninth Circuit reversed. Accepting that Frederick acted during a school-authorized activity and that the banner expressed a positive sentiment about marijuana use, the court nonetheless found a First Amendment violation because the school punished Frederick without demonstrating that his speech threatened substantial disruption. It also concluded that Morse was not entitled to qualified immunity because Frederick’s right to display the banner was so clearly established that a reasonable principal in Morse’s position would have understood that her actions were unconstitutional.

The Court ruled in favor of Morse: because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick. Pp.   Frederick’s argument that this was not a school speech case wass rejected. The event in question occurred during normal school hours and was sanctioned by Morse as an approved social event at which the district’s student-conduct rules expressly applied.  The Court agreed with Morse that those who viewed the banner would interpret it as advocating or promoting illegal drug use, in violation of school policy.

DeJOHN v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY
Christian DeJohn, a graduate student at Temple University and a sergeant in the Pennsylvania Army National Guard, was repeatedly  thwarted by school officials in his attempt to earn a master’s degree in Military and American History after expressing his conservative  political views.   DeJohn had been deployed to Bosnia shortly after 9/11 and started to receive anti-war e-mails from members  (defendants) of the Temple faculty.  When DeJohn asked that he stop receiving the e-mails, the defendants allegedly engaged in a series  of unlawful, retaliatory acts including:    failing to grant him military leave guaranteed by federal and state law, dismissing him from the school, refusing to advise him during his thesis completion , professionally denigrated him and his thesis,  rejecting his thesis without legitimate academic grounds, delaying his graduation three times, causing him to default on student loans , conspiring to deny him the same rights as other graduate students.

In March 2007, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against the school’s speech code, while also rejecting Temple’s efforts to dismiss DeJohn’s claims that the school withheld his master’s degree because of his political and ideological viewpoint.  Temple appealed  the court’s speech code ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Part of the initial lawsuit dealt with Temple University’s “speech code,” which ADF attorneys successfully argued was in  violation of the free speech rights of Temple students.  The code, according to ADF attorneys, was vague, overbroad, and suppressed the  discussion of controversial viewpoints.

 The Jury is to decide if Temple University’s actions prevented DeJohn from graduating from the school’s master’s degree program and if his  ability to obtain employment had been significantly damaged.  The freedom for all students to express their views, without fear of academic  retaliation, is at stake in this trial.  DeJohn is seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the Defendants’ actions of retaliation and  discrimination.

Hosty v. Carter
Hosty v. Carter, filed by The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)  on October 19th, 2005 urges the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of a Seventh Circuit decision that poses a grave threat to student press freedom.

FIRE's brief was joined by a remarkable coalition of nonprofit groups including Accuracy in Academia, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, the Coalition for Student & Academic Rights, Feminists for Free Expression, the First Amendment Project, Ifeminists.net, the Individual Rights Foundation, the Leadership Institute, the National Association of Scholars, and Students for Academic Freedom.
 
In Hosty v. Carter, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals refused to hold liable a college administrator at Governors State University in Illinois who censored a student newspaper that was highly critical of the administration. Most disturbingly, the court chose to apply in the college context a Supreme Court decision that has been used to severely curtail the free speech rights of high school students-despite the fact that the vast majority of college students are adults, while high school students are not.  Furthermore, the Seventh Circuit directly contradicted two Supreme Court decisions by holding that a student paper or group could potentially be controlled by the university merely because it received funding from mandatory student fees that are rightfully considered to belong to the student body, not the university. 
  
The controversy began in 2000, when administrator Patricia Carter demanded the right to review the content of a student fee-supported newspaper, The Innovator, before it was published. Student editor Margaret Hosty and others sued, and both the federal district court and a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit found in their favor. But on June 20, 2005, the Seventh Circuit en banc reversed its earlier ruling, determining that Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, a Supreme Court decision allowing prior review of certain high school newspapers, should apply to student fee-funded college media as well. FIRE has released a statement explaining the case and why it was wrongly decided.

Lyle v. Warner Brothers
The California Supreme Court granted review in a case filed by Amaani Lyle, a writers' assistant, who had been dismissed from the comedy show “Friends,” claimed she was subjected to a hostile work environment because of vulgar language and rude behavior by the show's writers. Ms. Lyle, a black woman, claimed sexual and racial harassment. She also argued that she was fired for insisting that more blacks be featured on the show. The writers argued that their words and actions were part of the creative process, and were justified as “creative necessity”.

A unanimous panel of Los Angeles' 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that a jury should decide whether the actions constituted harassment.

In petitioning for review, the attorneys for Warner Brothers Television Productions argued that such speech falls under the protections of the First Amendment and the California Constitution, and warned that letting jurors decide whether sexual discussions in the development of scripts were justified could "chill speech" in many workplaces.

In granting review, the Supreme Court told attorneys to argue whether "sexually coarse and vulgar language in the workplace" constitutes harassment under the state's Fair Employment and Housing Act. The court also sought debate about whether FEHA liability in such cases violates free-speech rights.

In a decision authored by Justice Marvin Baxter the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that sexually coarse and vulgar language is often a necessary part of the creative process when producing a hit TV show.

The decision held that crass brainstorming -- complete with foul words and lewd sexual simulations -- crosses the line only if it targets a person because of his or her sex or is severe enough to create a hostile work environment. Neither behavior occurred in Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions, 06 C.D.O.S. 3258, Baxter held.

"The record here reflects a workplace where comedy writers were paid to create scripts highlighting adult-themed sexual humor and jokes, and where members of both sexes contributed and were exposed to the creative process," he wrote. "Moreover," he continued, "there was nothing to suggest the defendants engaged in this particular behavior to make plaintiff uncomfortable or self-conscious, or to intimidate, ridicule or insult her."

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David Horwitz granted summary judgment for the writers and other defendants, awarding them more than $21,000 in costs and nearly $416,000 in attorney fees.

Billy Ray Counts and Mary Nell Counts vs. Cedarville School District
FFE joined the American Booksellers' Foundation for Free Expression and thirteen other organizations in an amicus brief submitted on February 28, 2003 to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith Division. The case was brought against the Cedarville School District by two parents concerned by the school board's efforts to censor the Harry Potter books by removing them from the school library shelves and refusing students access to them without written parental permission. The plaintiffs argued that the school board's decision violated their First Amendment right to free speech and to receive information. U.S. District Court Judge Jimm L. Henderson ruled in favor of the parents and said in his decision that the books must be displayed where they can be accessed without any restrictions other than those administrative restrictions that apply to all works of fiction in the district. According to the American Library Association, during the past four years the Harry Potter books have been the most frequently challenged books in the country, and this case was the first legal challenge to restriction on their use in a public school.

Yahoo! v. LICRA
FFE signed on to an amicus brief submitted on April 6, 2001, to the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California by the Center for Democracy and Technology, the ACLU and 16 other organizations and one individual, in support of the Internet Provider and search engine Yahoo!. A French organization, La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme (LICRA) had asked the U.S. court to enforce an order against Yahoo barring it from allowing its customers to view Nazi memorabilia for sale on E-Bay, or access "any other site or service that may be construed as constituting an apology for Nazism or contesting the reality of Nazi crimes," because these could be available in France and violate French law. Yahoo! had made a motion for summary judgment, and our excellent brief supported this motion not only with constitutional arguments and extensive citation of cases dealing with First Amendment protections of the Internet, but with specific examples of laws in six of the 59 countries that limit online freedom of expression, which might be attempted to be enforced here should LICRA's case be given credence.

On January 12, 2006 a U.S. appeals court declined to intervene on behalf of Yahoo, the Internet search company, saying U.S. courts have no jurisdiction in a case pitting free speech protections against a French law barring the sale of Nazi memorabilia.

In a case that pitted U.S. freedom of speech rights against European anti-hate group statutes, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that had rejected French plaintiffs attempts to enforce French laws against U.S. companies in U.S. courts.

Tattered Cover v. City of Thornton
FFE was one of 124 organizations that joined an amicus brief filed on June 11, 2001, in a bookstore case in the Denver District Court. "The government," said the brief, "is attempting to determine whether an individual read a book about how to make methamphetamines in order to prove that the individual in fact committed that crime," by issuing a broad search warrant to the police for all the individual's purchase records. Although the trial court found the warrant too broad, it did allow access to a particular invoice. The brief not only cites numerous decisions dealing with the First Amendment rights of those who patronize bookstores and libraries, but argues that the Colorado Constitution has long been held to offer even more free speech protections than the U.S. Constitution, and that the court did not take steps to be sure that the government had a compelling interest in the records in question, as First Amendment law dictates.

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
Later in June FFE was one of the seven amici filing a joint brief in the Supreme Court supporting a constitutional challenge to the Child Pornography Protection Act which was passed in 1996. This law changed the justification for creating a special forbidden category of nonobscene child pornography; originally it was predicated on the damage done to children in its creation. Now it is the possibility that it might lead to future crimes by inciting pedophiles or by their using such materials to entice children into illegal acts. The new law criminalizes not just images of real children but any image that "appears to be" or "conveys the impression of minors engaged in sexual conduct," whether this is done by morphing computer images or by using adult models that appear to be children. The Ninth Circuit has found that this standard is constitutionally vague.

There is no exception in the law for images created and used for serious literary, artistic, political or scientific purposes (indeed, it "now makes criminal many of the studies that could inform the Court's analysis of whether the government has proven the harm it alleges"), and there is a possibility that it could be used against paintings, drawings and sculpture as well as photo images. The brief makes three points: the previous definition of child pornography has already been used to suppress and prosecute in a number of examples of protected speech, from parental nude pictures of their children in the bath to serious journalistic and scientific research, and the CPPA will now make this situation worse. The government's argument that the CPPA will make it easier for it to obtain convictions because it will no longer have to show that real children have been victimized is an unconstitutional reversal of the burden of proof, and the law's affirmative defense (which requires proving that adults were used to create the images) is not available to those charged with possession or distribution with no connection to creation, or to those creators who used neither real adults nor real children. And the suppression of speech because it may cause some viewers to engage in illegal acts by "whetting the appetite" or providing the tools of incitement has grave implications for other kinds of speech, including political speech. Precisely because, in an age of sound bites, it can be dangerous to be seen as supporting "child pornography" (do not forget that all classes of obscenity are still illegal: it is only nonobscene images that are in question here), this is a very important case for free speech in general.

City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books
In a second Supreme Court case, FFE and some members of the Media Coalition, including the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression and the Freedom to Read Foundation submitted a joint amicus brief in support of a combination adult bookstore/arcade standing alone that has fallen victim to a zoning ordinance that assumes it produces harmful secondary effects, without any evidence or study showing such effects. The brief details the broadening scope of adult business zoning by which mainstream businesses are often threatened.