Question 1

Concerning the rights of an individual to distribute literature or engage in other forms of political speech, "traditional public forums" are those such as airport terminals and fairgrounds, while "limited public forums" are those such as a public park or the National Mall in Washington, D. C.

Accepted Answer

Traditional public forums include places such as public parks and the National Mall in Washington, D.C., where individuals have greater rights to distribute literature or engage in political speech. Airport terminals and fairgrounds are often considered nonpublic or limited public forums, where the government can impose more restrictions on speech.

Question 2

Based on Supreme Court rulings, print media such as newspapers and magazines are subject to more regulation than broadcast media such as television and radio.

Accepted Answer

Based on Supreme Court rulings, broadcast media like television and radio are subject to more regulation than print media like newspapers and magazines. This is because broadcasts enter homes and other private spaces more easily than print media, which can be more easily controlled in terms of their distribution and content.

Question 3

In the majority of cases involving the military's authority to control or limit the newsgathering process during military operations, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the media and determined that such limitations are an unconstitutional form of prior restraint.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court has generally upheld the military's authority to control or limit the newsgathering process during operations, recognizing national security concerns and operational security as legitimate reasons for such restrictions.

Question 4

When reviewing federal and state laws and city and county ordinances involving limitations on speech or expression, the U.S. Supreme Court generally upholds those that serve a legitimate purpose and are narrowly drawn and specific, but strikes down those that are too vague or overbroad.

Accepted Answer

The U.S. Supreme Court does generally uphold limitations on speech or expression that serve a legitimate purpose and are narrowly drawn and specific, but strikes down those that are too vague or overbroad. This is based on the principle of protecting free speech while also allowing for reasonable government regulation.

Question 5

Court rulings have determined the current and former government employees have the absolute First Amendment right to write and publish books based on their experiences, and those writings cannot be limited or censored by the government

Accepted Answer

While current and former government employees do have First Amendment rights, these rights are not absolute. Their writings can be subject to limitations and censorship, especially if they involve classified or sensitive information that could harm national security or other government interests.

Question 6

Based on Supreme Court rulings such as Buckley v. Valeo, First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, and Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, spending money on a political campaign is analogous to speech and is therefore protected by the First Amendment.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court has held that spending money on political campaigns is protected by the First Amendment's freedom of speech, as demonstrated by rulings such as Buckley v. Valeo, First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, and Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission.

Question 7

Based on court rulings, whenever there is doubt as to whether or not an individual or group's speech should be limited or prohibited, the burden of proof falls on the government agency or official wanting to limit the speech, as opposed to the individual or group whose speech rights are at risk. The legal term for this concept is
A) totalitarianism
B) utilitarianism
C) absolutism
D) stare decisis
E) strict scrutiny

Accepted Answer

The legal term for the concept described is strict scrutiny, which is a standard used by courts to determine if a government restriction on speech is constitutional or not. The burden of proof falls on the government to show that the restriction serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, while also leaving open alternative channels for communication. This high standard reflects the importance of protecting free speech under the First Amendment.

Question 8

Based on court rulings, there is no such thing as a complete and total freedom of speech; in many cases speech can be limited based on the time, place, and manner of the speech in question. The legal term for this concept is
A) content neutrality
B) utilitarianism
C) absolutism
D) stare decisis
E) strict scrutiny

Accepted Answer

The concept of limiting speech based on the time, place, and manner is known as content neutrality. This means that restrictions are not aimed at the content of the speech itself, but rather at the circumstances surrounding the speech. Therefore, choice A, content neutrality, is the correct answer. Utilitarianism is a moral theory, absolutism suggests that there are no exceptions to a rule or right, stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a decision, and strict scrutiny is a legal test used to determine whether a law or policy is constitutional.

Question 9

The Blackstonian Doctrine is a legal philosophy, adopted from English law, which suggests which of the following?
A) every newspaper in the country is required to have at least one reporter named "Blackstone"
B) there should be complete and total freedom of speech, with no consequences for harm
C) the burden of proof in free speech cases falls on the censor, not the speaker
D) there should be complete and total freedom of speech, but speakers can be punished for harm caused by their speech
E) the concept of freedom of speech is too abstract; the government is always more qualified to decide free-speech issues than the media or general public

Accepted Answer

The Blackstonian Doctrine suggests that there should be complete and total freedom of speech, but speakers can be punished for harm caused by their speech. This means that individuals have the right to express themselves freely without censorship or prior restraint, but they can still be held responsible for any harm that their speech causes. This approach is often seen as striking a balance between free speech and protecting individuals from harm.

Question 10

A state's "equivalent function rule" means that
A) the state supreme court performs a function equivalent to that of the U.S. Supreme Court, and therefore cases involving state crimes cannot be appealed beyond the state supreme court
B) shopping centers and sports stadiums, while they may be owned by private companies, are gathering places for large numbers of people and are therefore equivalent to public places in terms of free speech protections
C) high school teachers are the equivalent of college professors and therefore have the same free speech rights

Accepted Answer

The equivalent function rule means that private property that serves as a gathering place for large numbers of people, such as shopping centers or sports stadiums, must provide the same free speech protections as public places. Option A is incorrect because it refers to the jurisdiction of state courts versus federal courts, and option C is incorrect because there is no legal basis for equating high school teachers with college professors in terms of free speech rights.

Question 11

In Lloyd Corporation v. Tanner, which dealt with the rights of individuals and groups to peacefully distribute literature at privately owned shopping centers, the Supreme Court made which of the following rulings?
A) the owners of shopping centers CANNOT restrict the peaceful distribution of literature and other forms of political speech
B) the owners CAN restrict the distribution of political speech but not commercial
C) the owners of shopping centers can restrict the distribution of literature and other forms of political speech, but must be fair and treat all groups equally

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court ruled that the owners of shopping centers can restrict the distribution of literature and other forms of political speech, but they must be fair and treat all groups equally. This means that shopping center owners have the right to control what happens on their property, but they cannot discriminate against certain groups or favor others. This allows for a balance between private property rights and free speech rights.

Question 12

If you went to the second floor of your university library and began to shout criticisms of the university loud enough to be heard on the first floor, university officials could legally allow you to leave under which of the following common-law principles?
A) the library is a "limited public forum" rather than a "traditional public forum"
B) the officials' actions are a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction
C) your speech is obtrusive rather than nonobtrustive
D) all of the above
E) university officials have unlimited power to restrict speech everyone on campus

Accepted Answer

The correct answer is D because all the provided reasons can legally justify university officials asking you to leave. A) Libraries are considered "limited public forums" where restrictions can be placed on speech if they are reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. B) Officials can impose restrictions based on the time, place, and manner of speech to ensure the orderly conduct of the library's environment. C) Speech that is obtrusive and disrupts the intended use of the library can be restricted to maintain a conducive environment for study and research.

Question 13

In the case of Houston v. Hill, the individual at the center of the case won his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court based on which of the following?
A) he was not a United States citizen and was not subject to U.S. law
B) the flag he burned was his own rather than government property
C) his speech was political rather than commercial and was therefore protected
D) his speech was commercial rather than political and was therefore protected
E) the law under which he was prosecuted was vague and overbroad

Accepted Answer

The individual in Houston v. Hill won his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court based on the argument that the law under which he was prosecuted was vague and overbroad, thereby violating his First Amendment right to free speech.

Question 14

In Yates v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio, the government's right to limit speech was overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court because it FAILED to establish which of the following conditions?
A) the Fourth Amendment ban on illegal search and seizure
B) the Sixth Amendment clause regarding public trials
C) the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment
D) the "clear and present danger" test
E) the "bad tendency" test

Accepted Answer

Both Yates v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio involved the government attempting to restrict speech on the basis of potential harm or incitement to violence. In both cases, the Supreme Court overruled the government's attempts to limit speech, citing the "clear and present danger" test established in Schenck v. United States. This test requires the government to show that the speech in question presents a clear and present danger of inciting immediate lawless action, rather than simply being unpopular or controversial. Therefore, D is the correct choice as it refers to the condition that the government failed to establish in both cases.

Question 15

In United States v. Marchetti and Snepp v. United States, both cases of CIA agents challenging pre-publication agreements they had signed, the U.S. Supreme Court made which of the following rulings?
A) "pre-publication agreements" were an unconstitutional form of prior restraint
B) "pre-publication agreements" were a constitutional form of prior restraint
C) both cases were thrown out because the Supreme Court has no authority over book publishing
D) both cases were thrown out the government failed to meet the "clear and present danger" test
E) in both cases, the government was unable to prove that the "bad tendency test" applied

Accepted Answer

In both United States v. Marchetti and Snepp v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that "pre-publication agreements" were a constitutional form of prior restraint. The Court held that the government has a compelling interest in protecting national security, and that pre-publication agreements were a reasonable way to do so.

Question 16

In Near v. Minnesota and New York Times v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court made which of the following determinations, which is still the prevailing common law today?
A) injunctions are an unconstitutional form of prior restraint
B) injunctions are a constitutional form of prior restraint
C) both cases were thrown out because the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the issues involved
D) in both cases, the speech could be limited because the country was at war at the time

Accepted Answer

In Near v. Minnesota and New York Times v. United States, the Supreme Court determined that injunctions against publication represent an unconstitutional form of prior restraint, reinforcing the principle of freedom of the press under the First Amendment.

Quiz 3: Political Speech

Concerning the rights of an individual to distribute literature or engage in other forms of political speech, "traditional public forums" are those such as airport terminals and fairgrounds, while "limited public forums" are those such as a public park or the National Mall in Washington, D. C.

Based on Supreme Court rulings, print media such as newspapers and magazines are subject to more regulation than broadcast media such as television and radio.

In the majority of cases involving the military's authority to control or limit the newsgathering process during military operations, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the media and determined that such limitations are an unconstitutional form of prior restraint.

When reviewing federal and state laws and city and county ordinances involving limitations on speech or expression, the U.S. Supreme Court generally upholds those that serve a legitimate purpose and are narrowly drawn and specific, but strikes down those that are too vague or overbroad.

Court rulings have determined the current and former government employees have the absolute First Amendment right to write and publish books based on their experiences, and those writings cannot be limited or censored by the government

Based on Supreme Court rulings such as Buckley v. Valeo, First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, and Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, spending money on a political campaign is analogous to speech and is therefore protected by the First Amendment.

Based on court rulings, there is no such thing as a complete and total freedom of speech; in many cases speech can be limited based on the time, place, and manner of the speech in question. The legal term for this concept is

The Blackstonian Doctrine is a legal philosophy, adopted from English law, which suggests which of the following?

A state's "equivalent function rule" means that

In Lloyd Corporation v. Tanner, which dealt with the rights of individuals and groups to peacefully distribute literature at privately owned shopping centers, the Supreme Court made which of the following rulings?

If you went to the second floor of your university library and began to shout criticisms of the university loud enough to be heard on the first floor, university officials could legally allow you to leave under which of the following common-law principles?

In the case of Houston v. Hill, the individual at the center of the case won his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court based on which of the following?

In Yates v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio, the government's right to limit speech was overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court because it FAILED to establish which of the following conditions?

In United States v. Marchetti and Snepp v. United States, both cases of CIA agents challenging pre-publication agreements they had signed, the U.S. Supreme Court made which of the following rulings?

In Near v. Minnesota and New York Times v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court made which of the following determinations, which is still the prevailing common law today?