Until the 1900s, it was rare or never that the Supreme Court or lower courts ruled on the constitutionality of matters implicating free speech.
After World War I, there was anti-German sentiment, and in 1919, Nebraska passed a law forbidding teaching German in school. Robert Meyer was reading the Bible in German in school and was charged. The Nebraska court ruled 4 to 2 that the law was good.
The Georgia law holding that sex between consenting persons of the same sex could be prohibited was held constitutional in the 1980s by state and federal courts. The federal court ruling was 5 to 4 and one of the court later regretted somewhat his decision.
In 1986 the US Supreme Court heard a case in which people argued over the constitutionality of a Georgia law forbidding oral and anal sex between persons of the same sex. The case was Bowers v Hardwick.
Cohen wore a jacket to the courthouse in California which said Fuck the Draft. This was during the Vietnam war and many people were passionate for and against the war, for and against the draft. Moreover, at the time, the word “Fuck” was used more rarely and a person using the word itself might make some people mad.
The understanding of the relationship between the constitution and what is considered obscene has evolved greatly over time. A number of early decisions have been reversed or overturned.
In 1966, in the case of Memoirs v Massachusettes, the US Supreme Court was not united even within a majority of its members as to the correct criteria for saying something was legally subject to prosecution for being obscene. No opinion of the court in that case was regarded as persuasive, dispositive and a good general rule by a majority. The photo found at the page to which this links shows us the divisions of the Supreme Court on the issue.
Society has become more aware of or more sensitive to alleged bullying.
The following is an example of a school policy defining bullying:
This is a very interesting question. For some questions, the answer is clear cut and reasonably objective. For other questions, the answer is what the Supreme Court has chosen to allow or not allow, to protect or not protect.
The Heller decision back in 2008 was a so-called landmark decision that said that individuals have an individual right to own and bear handguns and that it is not enough for a city to allow a person to own and bear long-guns.