There have been multiple cases in which First Amendment rights have been violated by the defendant, plaintiff, or even the judge. One of those cases was that of Yetta Stromberg. 19-year-old Yetta Stromberg was a counselor at a summer camp for young Communists in San Bernardino, California. The campers came from working-class families who only had to pay $6 per child. All the adults there, including Stromberg, were volunteers. Stromberg led a flag-raising ceremony at seven every morning. One camper would raise the flag, while the others would recite the Communist pledge. On August 3, 1929, the camp was raided by caravans of American Legion members from the Redlands nearby. This raid was prompted by the Better America Federation of Los Angeles and the Intelligence Bureau of the Los Angeles Police Department. These organizations believed that the American republic was being undermined by a Bolshevik conspiracy in the Soviet Union. The raiders found a homemade, painted Communist flag, and a cardboard box labeled “Please do not touch”. They opened the box and discovered sheet music and Communist literature. The children did not know about this literature, as it was for Stromberg’s personal enjoyment. Both the flag and the literature was confiscated, and all the adults were arrested and taken to a jail in San Bernardino. They were convicted of violating a California law that made it a crime to display a red or Communist flag in public. This was before symbolic speech so this was not considered an infringement of any First Amendment rights. Stromberg was put onto trial in October of 1929. The trial was based around Stromberg’s box. Stromberg was convicted of conspiring to raise a red flag, and displaying a red flag. Stromberg was sentenced to prison for one to ten years, but appealed. The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) took her case to the Supreme Court. It was then ruled that Americans do have the right to oppose organized government, and Yetta Stromberg’s conviction was put aside. Stromberg’s case impacted the First Amendment rights by helping create the right to symbolic speech. Symbolic speech is using actions to “say” something. This is legal, as long as it does not harm anyone else. “The seed planted by Stromberg sprouted and grew into the ‘symbolic speech’ doctrine used decades later in cases involving burning draft cards the American flag, and crosses, and students flying a banner proclaiming ‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus'” (Bennett Turner, 23). This shows how after the Stromberg case, people began to use symbolic speech. This leads to the positive and negative outcomes that the Yetta Stromberg case had on society. As a positive, more people are speaking out for what they believe is right, but as a negative there are more protests and petitions going around than ever. This is overbearing on the law enforcement agencies. The Supreme Court was right in their ruling. Stromberg’s literature did not impact anyone other than herself, and the children there were obviously Communists and had the same beliefs as Stromberg, so they were not bothered by the flag. However, going against an organized nation is not, and should never be allowed, this “rebellion” did not harm anyone and therefore should be protected under symbolic speech. Another case was that of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Jehovah’s Witnesses were people who took the workings of god to a new, and literal level.Witnesses such as Amy Lovell, went door to door preaching and distributing literature. Residents and officials began to call the Witnesses “nuisances”. Amy Lovell was arrested in Griffin, Georgia for distributing this literature without a permit, she was sentenced to 50 days in jail. However, the Supreme Court reversed Lovell’s conviction because treating the Witnesses as the press did not seem right. This changed the freedoms protected in the First Amendment to say “…that the exercise of First Amendment freedoms cannot be made subject to licensing and government approval-has often invoked by magazine and film distributors, civil rights and antiwar demonstrators, and others. (‘Parading without a permit’ was a favorite excuse for the local authorities to try and shut down demonstrators)” (Bennett Turner, 29). It was always assumed that government could not license reporters, however, Jehovah’s Witnesses made this a law. Jehovah’s Witnesses were later arrested for breaking a state law which says that religious soliciting is illegal. The Jehovah’s Witnesses case mainly established the freedom of not speaking. Meaning they may not say the pledge, or bow. This is a positive impact, as it allows people to stay with their beliefs, whether they believe in a different God, or no God at all. This is a negative, as it shows unpatriotic actions which do not look good on the face of our country. The Supreme Court was correct in their ruling of the Jehovah’s Witnesses cases because of the rights they violated, or the rights they created. An example being the fighting words exception to the freedom of speech, or the fact that license plates violate the right not to speak. Another case was that of Raymond Procunier and Robert H. Schnacke. Procunier had previously defended the oppressive California prison censorship, which led the public eye to not be a fan of him. However, he obtained the chance to redeem himself in Procunier v. Schnacke. The two men were on opposing sides of a pressing First Amendment issue, whether prison officials can stop something like an execution from being televised by the press, something to never have been done before. On April 2, 1990, Robert Harris was scheduled to die in a gas chamber in California. The media was interested in being heavily involved in this case, as it was the first execution in California since 1967. Raymond Procunier was hired to be an expert witness. The judge on the case, was Schnacke. The court decided that access to criminal trial and proceeding is a First Amendment right. This impacted the first amendment freedoms in many ways. “First Amendment protection is at its maximum when government tries to prohibit publication of information. But protection of news gathering is much more attenuated. The difference is between speech, and conduct: the Supreme Court has always been more suspicious of government restrictions on the content of what a speaker says than of restrictions on the conduct involved in seeking out information for publication” (Bennett Turner, 61). This showed that this trial and execution was controversial, considering all the different opinions on the press. This was positive because of the end result leading to freedom of the press, but was a negative because of all the attention brought onto the case and execution. Overall, the Supreme Court was right in their judgement because the press should be able to say what needs to be said, just because it is an execution and that may not be what the criminal wants, but they are a criminal for a reason. They should be treated as one, whether or not that involves public humiliation, blood and gore, or not. The last case is that of Earl Caldwell. Caldwell had written an article about the Black Panthers and their “Revolutionary indoctrination of of African American young people in the San Francisco Bay Area” (Bennett Turner. 83). Prior to this article, Caldwell has written 16 other articles on the Black Panther party. Caldwell (African American) was hired by the New York Times, in order to gain information on the Black Panthers, which white reporters were unable to do. An issue arose, the federal government had called the Black Panthers a threat to national security. This led the FBI to try and interview Caldwell and try to get information about the Black Panthers. However, Caldwell refused because he knew that the Black Panthers would not give him any more information for The New York Times, if he spoke against them to the FBI. As a result, Caldwell was taken to court. The issue was that press could have gained special rights, which would have been a serious issue. This impacted the freedoms of the First Amendment by discussing how people cannot decide what others think or say, unless it directly towards the government. This was both a positive and a negative impact. This was positive because it allowed people to speak their minds, while still somewhat controlling what is said. This is a negative because there is no limit to what the press says, other than what it says about the government. Which takes away the feeling, not the right, but the feeling of privacy and safety. The Supreme Court was correct on saying that reporters do not need to disclose confidential information with the police. This is correct because the press in mainly used to show the worst in people. This should be an expected action of the press and it does not make sense to force the press to disclose information with the police. To conclude, these Supreme Court cases provide lessons for the future involving the First Amendment. The government should not get the benefit of the doubt. The government usually goes with with the larger side, to show that they are stronger with corporations and groups, rather than the people. The Constitution should also be interpreted as it was originally written. Amending the Constitution would raise question between the parties and would make it very difficult. As a result, the not everyone may be represented by the First Amendment, but sometimes that is better. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress if the human mind”.