Question: For the court cases Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts and Katzenbach v. Morgan, which established First Amendment protections, and which allowed Congress law enactment?
Context: Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment is a 2007 non-fiction book by journalist Anthony Lewis about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of thought, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The book starts by quoting the First Amendment, which prohibits the U.S. Congress from creating legislation which limits free speech or freedom of the press.  Lewis traces the evolution of civil liberties in the U.S. through key historical events.  He provides an overview of important free speech case law, including U.S. Supreme Court opinions in "Schenck v. United States" (1919), "Whitney v. California" (1927), "United States v. Schwimmer" (1929), "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" (1964), and "New York Times Co. v. United States" (1971). Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the standard of First Amendment protection against defamation claims brought by private individuals. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case that overturned a Florida state law requiring newspapers to allow equal space in their newspapers to political candidates in the case of a political editorial or endorsement content.  The court held that while the statute does not "prevent [newspapers] from saying anything [they] wish" it "exacts a penalty on the basis of the content."  Because newspapers are economically finite enterprises, "editors may conclude that the safe course is to avoid controversy," thereby chilling speech.  Furthermore, the Court held the exercise of editorial judgement is a protected First Amendment activity.  In effect, this ruling reaffirmed the constitutional principle of freedom of the press (detailed in the First Amendment) and prevented state governments from controlling the content of the press.  This case illustrates the medium with the most Constitutional protection—newspapers—while "Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC" represents the medium with the least protection—broadcast, television, and radio. Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966) , was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the power of Congress, pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, to enact laws that enforce and interpret provisions of the Constitution. Stephen P. Halbrook is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and an author and lawyer known for his litigation on behalf of the National Rifle Association.  He has written extensively about the original meanings of the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment (the latter as applied to Second Amendment rights).  He has argued and won three cases before the US Supreme Court: "Printz v. United States", "United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company", and "Castillo v. United States".  He has also written briefs in many other cases, including the Supreme Court cases "Small v. United States" (pertaining to the Gun Control Act of 1968) and "McDonald v. Chicago".  In "District of Columbia v. Heller", he wrote a brief on behalf of the majority of both houses of Congress.  More broadly, his decades of research on the Second Amendment contributed to the intellectual foundation of the "Heller" decision.  He has written many books and articles on the topic of gun control, some of which have been cited in Supreme Court opinions ("Heller", "McDonald", "Printz v. United States").  He has testified before congress on multiple occasions.  Halbrook’s most important scholarly contribution, however, was the book "That Every Man Be Armed", originally published in 1986.  The book was the most thorough analysis of the legal history and original intent of the Second Amendment. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925) , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the reach of certain limitations on federal government authority set forth in the First Amendment—specifically the provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press—to the governments of the individual states.  It was one of a series of Supreme Court cases that defined the scope of the First Amendment's protection of free speech and established the standard to which a state or the federal government would be held when it criminalized speech or writing. Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Commerce Clause allowed the federal government to regulate monopolies if it has a direct effect on commerce.  It marked the success of the Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt in destroying the "Beef Trust."  This case established a "stream of commerce" (or "current of commerce") argument that allows Congress to regulate things that fall into either category.  In particular it allowed Congress to regulate the Chicago slaughterhouse industry.  Even though the slaughterhouse supposedly only dealt with intrastate matters, the butchering of meat was merely a "station" along the way between cow and meat.  Thus as it was part of the greater meat industry that was between the several states Congress can regulate it.  The Court's decision halted price fixing by Swift & Company and its allies. Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), is the first of two United States Supreme Court cases dealing with the must carry rules imposed on cable television companies.  "Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission (II)", 520 U.S. 180 (1997) was the second.  "Turner I" established that cable television companies were indeed First Amendment speakers but didn't decide whether the federal regulation of their speech infringed upon their speech rights.  In "Turner II" the court decided that the must carry provisions were constitutional.  Under the "Miami Herald v. Tornillo" case, it was unconstitutional to force a newspaper to run a story the editors would not have included absent a government statute because it was compelled speech which could not pass the strict scrutiny of a compelling state interest being achieved with the least restrictive means necessary to achieve the state interest.  However, under the rule of "Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC" the High Court held that a federal agency could regulate broadcast stations (TV and Radio) with far greater discretion.  In order for federal agency regulation of broadcast media to pass constitutional muster, it need only serve an important state interest and need not narrowly tailor its regulation to the least restrictive means. The origins of the United States' defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that "The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel.  (Previous English defamation law had not provided this guarantee.)  Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases.  This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states.  The 1964 case "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan", however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not".  Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbid libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be patently false.  Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet. The Leonard Law is a California law passed in 1992 and amended in 2006 that applies the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to private and public colleges, high schools, and universities.  The law also applies Article I, Section 2 of the California Constitution to colleges and universities.  California is the only state to grant First Amendment protections to students at private postsecondary institutions.  Attempts at a federal Leonard Law and for Leonard Laws in other states have not succeeded.
Answer: Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the standard of First Amendment protection