According to the precedents and rulings set by the Supreme Court, the First Amendment protects many forms of free speech, including the promotion of anarchy or Communism, public criticism of the government’s policies during wartime, and even speech regarding the violent overthrow of the government – provided that such language does not explicitly lead to violent activity. However, the Court has found that the First Amendment does not, in fact, protect libelous speech. Although libel is often confused with slander, the two terms are legally different – libel is defined as a written negative statement about an individual, while slander (which is protected by the First Amendment) pertains to spoken speech only. Yet the Court has also set very high standards for any individual seeking to sue for libel, especially if the individual in question is a public figure (such as a politician or celebrity). According to the Court, the plaintiff (the person bringing the libel charge) must prove not only that the written statements in question are false but also that the accused author intentionally penned the comments with harmful intent. In other words, in order to win a libel case, the plaintiff must be able to be prove that the accused author willfully lied in an attempt to injure the plaintiff’s reputation and/or life. Such a standard is clearly quite difficult to meet – after all, how precisely does someone find absolute proof of another person’s inner motivations? Libel cases are thus hardly ever decided in favor of the plaintiff, although private individuals (aka average citizens) do have a very slightly higher success rate.

Perhaps the murkiest of all free speech issues can be found when considering the topic of symbolic speech. The Supreme Court defines symbolic speech as any action (typically carried out nonverbally) that is intended to express a personal opinion. In a sense, because such actions are normally carried out publically and are designed to make a dramatic or otherwise influential impact upon the viewer, the Court has ruled that the protections of the First Amendment are therefore applicable to these scenarios. However, the Court has yet to fully clarify precisely which actions are classified as symbolic speech and, conversely, which activities are not protected; instead, the Court has dealt with issues on an individual basis by deciding on the protected status of specific actions on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps the most famous case of symbolic speech involves the deliberate burning of the American flag, which citizens have done as a form of protest. Although many Americans, some justices included, dislike this action, the Court has ruled that burning the American flag does, in fact, quality as symbolic speech and is therefore allowed. Other protected acts of symbolic speech include the public display of a burning cross (unless explicit and directly connected threats are made) and the willful exclusion of a group from a public parade. A person may not, however, burn their military draft card as a form of protest, as the Court holds that a draft card, because it is issued by the federal government, is therefore federal property and cannot be destroyed without consent. Clearly, further clarification of symbolic speech is necessary and most likely forthcoming.

The Citizens United case famously established that the First Amendment protects person's political contributions as free speech and that corporations qualify for this sort of protection. A student who knows that the case involved corporations and free speech should be able to quickly narrow down the answers.

Traditionally, the Pledge of Allegiance was considered by many to be mandatory. The freedom of speech act allows citizens to choose whether or not to say the Pledge in public schools.

The Tinker Test is used when a state facility uses major disciplinary actions against a disruptive student. The First Amendment protects students from uninformed or unfair dismissals, and the precedent established in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District allows courts to easily arbitrate these situations.