This First Amendment activity for law school students applies the Supreme Court decisions in social media cases to a conflict that surfaces on a college campus.
The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech [.]”
Elonis v. U.S. (2015) was the first time that the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear a case involving the constitutionality of prosecuting potential threats in a social media context. It was followed by the Court’s decision in 2023 in Counterman v. Colorado. The Court’s decisions may have far-reaching consequences for users of social media and for the development of First Amendment law.
This activity asks law students to balance First Amendment free speech rights with the interests of individuals to be free from cyber harassment, fear, and intimidation.
What's Different About This Activity?
- Resources Geared to Law Students
- Landmark Cases with a Relatable Fictional Scenario
- Court Simulation – Not a Mock Trial
- Every Learning Style is Involved
- Centerpiece is Jury Deliberations
How to Use These Resources
Download the agenda and activity package (docx).
Roles in the Simulation
- One Presiding Judge
- One Facilitator – The facilitator, a volunteer attorney, guides the jury deliberations.
- Six Attorney Coaches – Ideally, four attorney coaches assist the law school attorney teams – two assist the team representing Andy Jackson and two assist the team representing the Government. Two attorney coaches prepare the law school jurors for the activity.
- Eight Student Attorneys – Four law students represent each side – Andy Jackson and Sarah and Sam.
- Student Jurors – All other students serve as jurors who deliberate and come to a show-of-hands verdict unless there is time to come to a unanimous verdict and use the verdict form.
What Happens During This Activity
- In advance of the activity, four students are selected to be attorneys for each side: 1) Andy and 2) Sarah and Sam. All remaining students serve as jurors.
All participants review the agenda (docx), take the civility self-reflection tool (docx) and the reality check quiz (docx), and read the law and fictional scenario for the arguments. Student attorneys may find it helpful to read the majority opinion in Elonis v. U.S. (pdf) and the majority opinion in Counterman v. Colorado (pdf).
- In breakout rooms, the eight student attorneys work with their attorney coaches to review the opening protocol (docx) and the talking points (docx) as a guide for building arguments. The student attorneys delivering the closing arguments for each side use the closing arguments worksheet (docx) as a guide.
In the courtroom, the facilitator engages the student jurors in conversation about the case using the student jury preparation exercise (docx) with an answer key (docx).
- In the courtroom, the eight student attorneys present their arguments, and the judge asks questions as they argue.
- After the closing arguments are presented by both sides, the students jurors deliberate in open court. The facilitator moderates the arguments to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to speak. Otherwise, the jurors explore the issues together with direction or guidance until the facilitator brings the deliberations to a close. If there is time to come to a verdict, they use the verdict form (docx) to deliver their verdict. Because of time constraints, the verdict does not have to be unanimous.
The presiding judge, attorney coaches, and student attorneys watch as the jurors debate in open court.