U.S. Constitutional Law

The actions of Harry at the race , while distasteful , were under the protection of at least three clauses of the First Amendment . The Amendment indicates that Congress (and by 14th Amendment extension , the States ) can pass no law abridging the freedom of speech , press or assembly . Harry employed each of these methods of communication in his protest . At no time did Harry transcend the bounds of any limitations set upon these rights by the Supreme Court

One might be tempted to argue that Harry 's action and words constituted an exception to

the free speech doctrine . In Schenk v . United States (1919 ) the Supreme Court ruled that speech with the purpose of causing immediate harm (such as falsely yelling fire ' in a crowded theater is not protected under the first amendment . Even though this is the case , in Harry 's example this limitation is not applicable , since his words were not causing a situation of imminent or clear and present danger ' that is required to meet the free speech exception (Schenk .1919

Harry was in a public place , and his speech and slogans did contain some profanity . It is possible that he was violating some local ordinance regarding obscenity in public , but he was not arrested or charged with such a violation . As the obscenities were used to convey a political point of view , it is unlikely that such an arrest would lead to a conviction that would withstand First Amendment scrutiny in any case

While Harry 's speech did...