Summarize one of the following Supreme Court cases as it is discussed in chapter 3 or 4 of Freedom for the Thought That We Hate.

Tasks
For this assignment, you must summarize one of the following Supreme Court cases as it is discussed in chapter 3 or 4 of Freedom for the Thought That We Hate.
Schenck v. United States
Abrams v. United States
Near v. Minnesota
New York Times v. Sullivan
You must also complete two peer reviews of other student work.
Estimated Time on Task
After you have re-read the details of the case, you should be able to write the summary in 30-60 minutes.
You should need approximately 20-40 minutes to complete the peer reviews of the other students’ work.
Deadline
The deadline for posting your work is 11:59 p.m., Friday night.
The deadline for peer reviews is 8 a.m., Monday (week 3).
Requirements
The summary must be one paragraph of no less 150 words and no more than 200.
It must start with a topic sentence that introduces the case.
It must restate only the key facts of the case: the people, actions, historical situation, etc.
It must explain the court’s decision and reason for the decision.
It must include the necessary MLA documentation (source name and page number[s]).
It must be written in your own words.
It must include the word count at the bottom.
Do not use any other source. If you google the case and then summarize whatever Google produces (or if you just cut and paste it), then you will have cheated and you will face the consequences for violating the CBC academic honesty policy.
Technical Matters
Write your summary in a word processor.
Hit the “reply” option at the bottom of this screen.
Copy and paste your summary into the new window.
An Example
In the 1952 Beauharnais v. Illinois decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Joseph Beauharnais, who had been found guilty of violating an Illinois law that made it illegal to publish attacks on groups of people because their race, color, or religion. He had printed and handed out leaflets attacking African-Americans in Chicago. The nine justices on the court voted five to four to confirm Beauharnais’s conviction. Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote the opinion, arguing that the First Amendment did not protect libel directed at entire groups of people. Justice Hugo Black, who voted to overturn Beauharnais’s conviction, argued that the law played favorites by protecting some groups but not others. The case was significant because it confirmed the assumption that group libel could be considered a crime. However, this principle was subsequently undone in the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision, when the court reversed itself and decided that libel itself was no longer criminal (Lewis 158-59).
Word Count: 158 words