Template talk:US1stAmendment

Great template
This is a very useful template, and a helpful navigational tool! :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I created this template back when I was in law school. Glad to see it's still in use and appreciated. --LegalSkeptic (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:REDNOT
It has been contended at Template talk:Criminal due process that such templates may not contain redlinks. This may be of interest to those who maintain this template (which currently does contain a few red links, mostly in the same section). Savidan 00:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject
I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do: Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech
 * 1) List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech.
 * 2) Add userbox User Freedom of speech to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
 * 3) Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 4) Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 5) Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Supreme Court cases
This template should be limited to cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As a general rule, that is a good guideline, but there are some very notable exceptions that I believe belong in this navbox. For instance, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is one of the most notable cases out there on the issue of teaching creationism (specifically "intelligent design"), and I don't think it should be left out just because it wasn't appealed to the Supreme Court. Honestly, if there is a lower court opinion on the First Amendment that is not noteworthy enough for this navbox, it is probably not noteworthy enough to merit its own Wikipedia article. --LegalSkeptic (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Displaying multiple child menus
I have added  parameters for all the child navboxes (Establishment, Free Exercise, etc...), which allows multiple child navboxes to be uncollapsed by adding   where n is the number of the child menu (Establishment=1, Free Exercise=2, etc.). (Note: I accidentally pressed enter instead of a quotation mark while typing the changes made, which is why the edit summary is just "add".) This was based on the discussion I found at Template talk:Navbox with collapsible groups.

The reason for doing so was so that both the Free Exercise and Free Speech child navboxes could be uncollapsed on the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission article, since that case deals with both areas. In that case, this is the text for the navbox's usage:

The navbox is initially displayed as collapsed, but when "show" is clicked, the Free Exercise and Free Speech sections are displayed. Here is what that produces:

Hope this helps anyone else facing the same issue. AHeneen (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks! This might also be good for a few of the notable SCOTUS cases on religion that involve the intersection of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. --LegalSkeptic (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2018
Add Smith v. California (1959) to the "Obscenity" subcategory in Freedom of Speech, and possibly create a similar "Obscenity" subcategory in Freedom of the Press for this case there. 184.3.211.90 (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Added per first request and added template to Smith v. California. Second part of the request not done because only one item in a sub-subcategory doesn't really need a navigation template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2019
"Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar" to "Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar" to prevent redirect
 * Yes check.svg Done Danski454 (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Redoing categories under Establishment Clause?
We currently have five categories in the template's Establishment Clause section: public funding, public displays, school prayer, creationism, legislature prayer, and other. How do people feel about redoing these categories to match those provided either by Justice Alito or Justice Kavanaugh in the recent American Legion case? The categories could be something like: Dwsrmwolf (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Public displays
 * Religious accommodations
 * Subsidies and tax exemptions
 * Public schools
 * Private religious speech
 * Internal church affairs
 * Other

Language bans
Is this covered? I think it should be, under its own header, but I'm not seeing anything. English-only laws, bans on speaking foreign languages in public (e.g. after WWI), English-only Indian boarding schools with the goal of cultural genocide [excuse me] assimilation, etc. Some people think it was illegal for a time to speak Native American languages, but I can't find anything about that (apart from the boarding schools). Anyway, a header for this topic would be interesting. — kwami (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)