Question 1

The framers of the Constitution intended the First Amendment to protect citizens from interference with their freedom of expression by state and local governments as well as by the federal government.

Accepted Answer

The framers of the Constitution initially intended the First Amendment to protect citizens from federal government interference with their freedom of expression, not from state or local government actions. The application of the First Amendment to the states came later through the doctrine of incorporation via the Fourteenth Amendment.

Question 2

When adopted by the states in 1791, the First Amendment protected citizens' free speech rights from interference by state and local governments as well as from interference by the federal government.

Accepted Answer

The First Amendment originally protected citizens' free speech rights only from interference by the federal government. It was later applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's incorporation doctrine.

Question 3

The Supreme Court disfavors content regulations, yet the First Amendment protects political speech more than it protects advertising.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court has placed a high value on protecting political speech, even if it means reviewing content regulations more strictly. However, the Court has been less protective of commercial speech, like advertising, which can be subject to more regulation.

Question 4

During the McCarthy Era of the 1950s, the Supreme Court ruled in Dennis v. United States that a citizen's membership in the Communist Party constituted a clear and present danger to the nation.

Accepted Answer

This statement is true. The Supreme Court's decision in Dennis v. United States in 1951 upheld the conviction of Communist Party leaders under the Smith Act, ruling that their advocacy for the violent overthrow of the government posed a clear and present danger to national security. This decision was made during the height of the McCarthy Era, a period of intense anti-communist sentiment in the United States.

Question 5

The Supreme Court has ruled that high school students have a constitutional right to criticize the principal in a school sponsored newspaper.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court has ruled that school administrators can exercise editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. This was established in the case Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988), which allows school officials to censor school-sponsored publications like newspapers if their decisions are related to legitimate educational concerns.

Question 6

"Fighting words," by definition, incite large groups to riot.

Accepted Answer

"Fighting words" are defined as words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. They do not necessarily incite large groups to riot, but are directed towards provoking a violent reaction from an individual.

Question 7

"Fighting words" are words delivered face-to-face that provoke another individual to retaliate physically.

Accepted Answer

"Fighting words" are defined as words that are likely to provoke a physical altercation or immediate violence from the person they are spoken to. They must be delivered in person and directed specifically at the individual in question.

Question 8

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that threatening to get "revengence" at some distant time constitutes a clear and present danger.

Accepted Answer

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that speech advocating illegal action is protected under the First Amendment unless it is likely to incite "imminent lawless action." The case did not specifically address threats of "revengence" at a distant time as constituting a clear and present danger.

Question 9

In Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court ruled that burning crosses in any location is always an unprotected expressive act intended to intimidate.

Accepted Answer

In Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court ruled that burning crosses is not always an unprotected expressive act intended to intimidate. Instead, the intent to intimidate must be proven in each individual case.

Question 10

In Elonis v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that Anthony Elonis could be convicted of posting a true threat if the prosecution proved he had an intent to intimidate when he posted a vicious message about his estranged wife.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court did rule in Elonis v. United States that Anthony Elonis could be convicted of posting a true threat if the prosecution proved he had an intent to intimidate when he posted a vicious message about his estranged wife.

Question 11

It violates the First Amendment to forbid judicial candidates from speaking on public issues during an election campaign.

Accepted Answer

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that such a prohibition would be a violation of the First Amendment's protection of free speech. In the case of Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002), the Court struck down a Minnesota rule that prohibited judicial candidates from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues.

Question 12

A board of city commissioners could constitutionally prohibit a civil rights parade that might have a "tendency" to draw hostile opposition.

Accepted Answer

This statement is not true. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the government cannot suppress speech or assembly simply because some people might react negatively or violently to it. Instead, the government has a duty to protect the individuals exercising their First Amendment rights and to only regulate speech and assembly in a content-neutral manner.

Question 13

The independent, off-campus student newspaper with website is a traditional public forum.

Accepted Answer

A traditional public forum is a place like a park or street where free speech is historically protected. An independent, off-campus student newspaper is not a traditional public forum but rather a limited or designated public forum.

Question 14

It is constitutional to punish all expression in the legal category of "hate" speech, the Supreme Court has ruled.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court has ruled that some forms of "hate" speech are protected under the First Amendment, including offensive or unpopular ideas, unless they incite violence or imminent lawless action. Only speech that falls into certain narrowly defined categories, such as true threats, incitement to violence, or fighting words, can be punished.

Question 15

The European Union may prohibit hateful speech that is protected in the United States.

Accepted Answer

The European Union has laws that prohibit hate speech, while in the United States, hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. Therefore, a statement that may be legal in the US may be considered illegal hate speech in the EU.

Question 16

It is constitutional to punish all expression in the legal category of "depicting cruelty to animals," the Supreme Court has ruled.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Stevens (2010) that a law criminalizing the commercial production, sale, or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty was an unconstitutional abridgment of the First Amendment right to free speech, thus not all expression in the category of "depicting cruelty to animals" can be constitutionally punished.

Question 17

A federal appeals court has ruled (Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools) that school officials can punish a high school student for off-campus internet posts that harass and bully a fellow student.

Accepted Answer

The federal appeals court ruled in Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools that school officials can indeed punish a high school student for off-campus internet posts that harass and bully a fellow student.

Question 18

It is a crime, the Supreme Court has ruled, to falsely claim to have won a military medal.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Alvarez (2012) that falsely claiming to have won a military medal is protected speech under the First Amendment, striking down the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. However, Congress later passed a revised version, the Stolen Valor Act of 2013, which makes it a crime to fraudulently claim receipt of certain decorations and medals with the intention of obtaining money, property, or other tangible benefits.

Question 19

The Supreme Court has ruled the First Amendment prohibits a state university from denying funding to a campus religious magazine if the university funds magazines on other topics.

Accepted Answer

This statement is true. It is based on the Supreme Court case Rosenberger v. University of Virginia in 1995, which held that a state university cannot discriminate against student groups with religious views when it provides funding to other student groups. This ruling reaffirmed the protection of free speech and religious expression under the First Amendment.

Question 20

American courts generally will not enforce judgments against American media by foreign courts for libel, hate speech, invasion of privacy and other torts if the expression would be protected under the First Amendment in the United States.

Accepted Answer

This is known as the "libel tourism" exception, where American courts will not enforce a foreign court's judgment that violates the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech and the press.

Quiz 2: The First Amendment