Freedom of speech and of the press Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, Motion pictures are not entitled to free speech protection because they are a business, not a form of art (overruled by Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952)). Schenck v. United States, Expressions in which the circumstances are intended to result in crime that poses a clear and present danger of succeeding can be punished without violating the First Amendment (overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)).Gitlow v. New York, The provisions of the First Amendment that protect the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press apply to the governments of the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Stromberg v. California, A California law that bans red flags is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment's protection of symbolic speech as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.Near v. Minnesota, A Minnesota law that imposes prior restraints on the publication of "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory" content violates the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.United States v. One Book Called Ulysses, 5 F.Supp. 182, S.D.N.Y., 1933 Obscene content in a literary work is protected if the purpose of the work as a whole is not to titillate or excite the reader sexually. Upheld by the Second Circuit on appeal.New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., Peaceful and orderly dissemination of information by those defined as persons interested in a labor dispute concerning 'terms and conditions of employment' in an industry or a plant or a place of business is lawful.Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, Fighting words—words that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace—are not protected by the First Amendment.Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, Motion pictures, as a form of artistic expression, are protected by the First Amendment.Roth v. United States, Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment (superseded by Miller v. California (1973)).One, Inc. v. Olesen, (per curiam) Pro-homosexual writing is not per se obscene. It was the first U.S. Supreme Court ruling to address free speech rights with respect to homosexuality.Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, Images of naked men are not, per se, obscene, extending Olesen in a way that spurred an increase in same-sex erotica that helped spur the rise of the LGBTQ rights movement later in the decade.New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,