Question 1

Two justices issued dissents from denial of cert in a case dealing with individuals who had been denied access to a president's speech because of a bumper sticker on their car.The case:
A)Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co.v.Commissioner of Revenue.
B)McIntyre v.Ohio Elections Commission.
C)Weise v.Casper.
D)Rice v.Paladin Press.
E)Frisby v.Schultz.

Accepted Answer

Weise v. Casper is a case that deals with the denial of access to a presidential speech because of a bumper sticker on the individual's car. Two justices issued dissents from the denial of cert in this case, making it the most likely choice for the given question. The other options do not relate to the specific issue of access to a president's speech based on a bumper sticker.

Question 2

The Supreme Court once held that a state's tax on large newspapers but not small ones violated the First Amendment because it was obviously intended to punish most of the large papers for opposing that state's governor.That happened in:
A)Grosjean v.American Press.
B)Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co.v.Commissioner of Revenue.
C)Texas Monthly v.Bullock.
D)Leathers v.Medlock.
E)Arkansas Writers' Project v.Ragland.

Accepted Answer

The case of Grosjean v. American Press is the one that dealt with a state's tax on large newspapers but not small ones and violated the First Amendment because it was intended to punish most of the large papers for opposing that state's governor.

Question 3

The Supreme Court allowed a city to control sound levels at rock concerts even though the city's action did not meet the "least intrusive means" test.That happened in the case of:
A)Ward v.Rock Against Racism.
B)City of Lakewood v.Plain Dealer.
C)Lovell v.City of Griffin.
D)Jones v.City of Opelika.
E)R.A.V.v.St.Paul.

Accepted Answer

The case of Ward v. Rock Against Racism established that the city's interest in controlling sound levels at rock concerts was substantial and the measures taken were narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The court found that the city's actions did not need to meet the "least intrusive means" test as long as they were reasonable and did not significantly interfere with the freedom of expression. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the city to control sound levels at rock concerts in this case.

Question 4

In the "Hit Man" case (Rice v.Paladin Press),the Fourth Circuit said that the publishers of "Hit Man" could be sued for damages because the book:
A)talked abstractly about murder for hire.
B)incited readers to commit murder.
C)named particular individuals to be killed.
D)offered payment for the murder of someone.
E)all of the above.

Accepted Answer

The Fourth Circuit determined that "Hit Man" went beyond simply discussing murder for hire and actually provided detailed instructions and encouragement for readers to commit murder, making it an incitement to violence. This is not protected under the First Amendment, and the publishers could be held liable for damages.

Question 5

The Supreme Court held that the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)Act cannot ordinarily be used against anti-abortion protesters even if they block access to a medical clinic in the 2003 case of:
A)Scheidler v.National Organization for Women.
B)Feminist Women's Health Center v.Blythe.
C)Madsen v.Women's Health Center.
D)Frisby v.Schultz.
E)Virginia v.Black.

Accepted Answer

In Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, the Supreme Court held that anti-abortion protesters cannot be prosecuted under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act unless their activities include a pattern of racketeering activity unrelated to their anti-abortion activities. The Court explained that the term "racketeering activity" in the RICO Act refers to specified criminal acts such as extortion and fraud, and not to peaceful protest activities, even if they involve trespass or other interference with access to medical facilities. Therefore, the RICO Act could not be used against the anti-abortion protesters in this case.

Question 6

The Supreme Court handed down a decision in 2013 in Agency for Int'l Dev.v.Alliance for Open Society Int'l that said what?
A)Abortion protests cannot take place in front of hospitals.
B)What organizations say that does not align with governmental goals must be paid for with their own money.
C)The KKK cannot demonstrate in front of government buildings.
D)Anonymous speech gets as much protection as speech whose speaker is known.
E)All funeral protest laws are unconstitutional.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court ruled that organizations receiving federal funds must comply with the government's policies and objectives, and that they cannot use these funds to promote ideologies or messages that contradict those objectives. This is known as the "anti-prostitution pledge" case, as the case centered around organizations receiving funds to combat HIV/AIDS that were required to adopt a policy opposing prostitution.

Question 7

In which case did the Supreme Court invalidate a law attempting to regulate speech about animal cruelty?
A)Virginia v.Black.
B)Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co.v.Commissioner of Revenue.
C)Pleasant Grove City v.Summum.
D)Near v.Minnesota.
E)U.S.v.Stevens.

Accepted Answer

U.S. v. Stevens is the only case out of the options listed where the Supreme Court invalidated a law attempting to regulate speech about animal cruelty. In this case, the Court struck down a federal law criminalizing the creation, sale, or possession of depictions of animal cruelty, ruling that it was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

Question 8

In what case did a Colorado court say that a law forbidding "gruesome" images on billboards was a narrowly tailored way to protect children?
A)Pleasant Grove City v.Summum.
B)McIntyre v.Ohio Elections Commission.
C)Rice v.Paladin Press.
D)Saint John's Church in the Wilderness v.Scott.
E)U.S.v.Stevens.

Accepted Answer

In Saint John's Church in the Wilderness v. Scott, the Colorado court ruled that a law forbidding "gruesome" images on billboards was a narrowly tailored way to protect children, addressing the specific concern of shielding minors from disturbing imagery.

Question 9

What was at issue in the 2009 Supreme Court case of Pleasant Grove City v.Summum?
A)Damages for trespass.
B)Abortion protests.
C)Monuments in public parks.
D)Taxation on the media.
E)Protests at sporting events.

Accepted Answer

The case of Pleasant Grove City v. Summum dealt with the issue of monuments in public parks. Specifically, the Summum religious group sought to have a monument of their Seven Aphorisms placed in a public park alongside other monuments, but the city of Pleasant Grove denied their request. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the city of Pleasant Grove had the right to display certain monuments in its public parks and was not required to accept all requests for monument placements.

Question 10

The Supreme Court said in McIntyre v.Ohio Elections Commission that:
A)the government's refusal to fund speech is not the same thing as censoring it.
B)laws on animal cruelty must be narrowly tailored.
C)an anti-abortion website was a true threat.
D)anonymous speech gets as much protection as speech whose speaker is known.
E)flag-burning laws are unconstitutional.

Accepted Answer

In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that anonymous speech is protected under the First Amendment and receives the same level of protection as speeches by known speakers. The case involved a woman named Margaret McIntyre who distributed anonymous flyers in her community expressing her opinions about a school levy. The Ohio Elections Commission fined her for violating a state law prohibiting anonymous campaign literature, but the Supreme Court overturned this decision, finding that such laws burdened anonymous speakers and were therefore unconstitutional. The Court's decision affirmed the importance of protecting anonymity as a means of free expression.

Question 11

In what 2011 case did the Supreme Court barring a state from enforcing a law restricting protests near funerals?
A)City of Las Vegas v.ACLU.
B)Harman v.City of New York.
C)Virginia v.Black.
D)Snyder v.Phelps.
E)Pleasant Grove City v.Summum.

Accepted Answer

Snyder v. Phelps was a 2011 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that a state could not enforce a law restricting protests near funerals, even if those protests are considered offensive or hurtful. The case centered around the Westboro Baptist Church, which had been protesting near military funerals, arguing that soldiers' deaths were God's punishment for the country's tolerance of homosexuality. The Court's ruling was based on the First Amendment's protection of free speech, even when that speech is unpopular or offensive.

Question 12

The Supreme Court held that a state tax on ink and newsprint was unconstitutional because it applied to large newspapers but exempted small ones,even though there was no evidence the tax was intended to punish any newspaper for its content.That happened in:
A)Grosjean v.American Press.
B)Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co.v.Commissioner of Revenue.
C)Texas Monthly v.Bullock.
D)Leathers v.Medlock.
E)Arkansas Writers' Project v.Ragland.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court case Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue held that a state tax on ink and newsprint that applied only to large newspapers was unconstitutional, as it discriminated among different speakers and press entities without a compelling government interest to justify such differential treatment.

Question 13

According to the Fourth Circuit in Bland v.Roberts,clicking "Like" on a Facebook page is:
A)unprotected speech.
B)not speech at all.
C)entitled to the same protection as typing "I like this" in text.
D)not really indicative of anything.
E)none of these.

Accepted Answer

The Fourth Circuit in Bland v. Roberts held that clicking "Like" on a Facebook page is entitled to the same protection as other forms of expression, such as typing "I like this" in text. Therefore, choice C is the correct answer.

Question 14

The Stolen Valor Act criminalizes lying about:
A)military awards and decorations.
B)service in the armed forces.
C)wartime crimes.
D)any of the above.
E)none of the above.

Accepted Answer

The Stolen Valor Act specifically criminalizes lying about military awards and decorations. It does not address other lies about service in the armed forces or wartime crimes.

Question 15

In 2014,the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts abortion clinic buffer zone in McCullen v.Coakley.What was the majority's rationale for doing this?
A)The law was not sufficiently narrowly tailored to meet the government's goals.
B)The law could not survive strict scrutiny.
C)Any buffer zone law should be held unconstitutional.
D)The law was viewpoint-discriminatory.
E)The law was overbroad.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court found that the Massachusetts law was not sufficiently narrowly tailored to serve the government's interest in public safety and patient access to healthcare facilities, thus failing to meet the requirements for a content-neutral regulation of speech.

Question 16

Suppose a city passed a law banning demonstrations that target a specific private residence while allowing them on public sidewalks in general.Based on the Frisby v.Schultz case,such a law would be:
A)okay-not an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of expression.
B)a violation of the First Amendment.
C)a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment "due process" clause.
D)both choices b and c.
E)Frisby v.Schultz had nothing to do with demonstrations in residential areas.

Accepted Answer

In Frisby v. Schultz, the Supreme Court held that a ban on targeted residential picketing was constitutional because it protected "legitimate interests in residential privacy and tranquility" and did not completely bar all expressive activity in the surrounding public forum. Therefore, a law banning demonstrations targeting a private residence would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Question 17

A federal court ruled in 2003 that a city could not ban soliciting and leafletting on a downtown pedestrian mall unless the city could justify it under the strict-scrutiny standard.The case:
A)S.O.C.v.The Mirage.
B)City of Las Vegas v.ACLU.
C)Harman v.City of New York.
D)Venetian Casino Resort v.Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas.
E)Costco Companies v.Gallant.

Accepted Answer

The case mentioned in the question is about a city's attempt to ban soliciting and leafletting on a pedestrian mall, which is a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment. The strict-scrutiny standard requires that any government restriction on free speech must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. In this case, the federal court ruled that the city could not justify such a ban without meeting this standard. City of Las Vegas v. ACLU is the only choice that relates to this specific issue.

Question 18

The First Amendment does not excuse the mass media from paying the normal business taxes that all businesses must pay.In which of these cases was a tax on a medium of communications upheld?
A)Texas Monthly v.Bullock.
B)Arkansas Writers' Project v.Ragland.
C)Leathers v.Medlock.
D)Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co.v.Commissioner of Revenue.
E)Grosjean v.American Press.

Accepted Answer

In Leathers v. Medlock, the Supreme Court upheld a tax on a medium of communications, ruling that the First Amendment does not exempt media companies from paying the same taxes that other businesses pay, as long as the tax is applied in a nondiscriminatory manner.

Question 19

In U.S.v.Alvarez,the Court overturned what law,saying that there is no "general exception to the First Amendment for false statements"?
A)The Alien and Sedition Act.
B)The Stolen Valor Act.
C)A California hate speech law.
D)Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act.
E)none of the above.

Accepted Answer

In U.S. v. Alvarez, the Court overturned the Stolen Valor Act, which made it illegal to falsely claim having received military honors or decorations, stating that there is no "general exception to the First Amendment for false statements."

Quiz 3: Modern Prior Restraints

Two justices issued dissents from denial of cert in a case dealing with individuals who had been denied access to a president's speech because of a bumper sticker on their car.The case:

The Supreme Court once held that a state's tax on large newspapers but not small ones violated the First Amendment because it was obviously intended to punish most of the large papers for opposing that state's governor.That happened in:

The Supreme Court allowed a city to control sound levels at rock concerts even though the city's action did not meet the "least intrusive means" test.That happened in the case of:

In the "Hit Man" case (Rice v.Paladin Press) ,the Fourth Circuit said that the publishers of "Hit Man" could be sued for damages because the book:

The Supreme Court held that the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act cannot ordinarily be used against anti-abortion protesters even if they block access to a medical clinic in the 2003 case of:

The Supreme Court handed down a decision in 2013 in Agency for Int'l Dev.v.Alliance for Open Society Int'l that said what?

In which case did the Supreme Court invalidate a law attempting to regulate speech about animal cruelty?

In what case did a Colorado court say that a law forbidding "gruesome" images on billboards was a narrowly tailored way to protect children?

What was at issue in the 2009 Supreme Court case of Pleasant Grove City v.Summum?

The Supreme Court said in McIntyre v.Ohio Elections Commission that:

In what 2011 case did the Supreme Court barring a state from enforcing a law restricting protests near funerals?

The Supreme Court held that a state tax on ink and newsprint was unconstitutional because it applied to large newspapers but exempted small ones,even though there was no evidence the tax was intended to punish any newspaper for its content.That happened in:

According to the Fourth Circuit in Bland v.Roberts,clicking "Like" on a Facebook page is:

The Stolen Valor Act criminalizes lying about:

In 2014,the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts abortion clinic buffer zone in McCullen v.Coakley.What was the majority's rationale for doing this?

Suppose a city passed a law banning demonstrations that target a specific private residence while allowing them on public sidewalks in general.Based on the Frisby v.Schultz case,such a law would be:

A federal court ruled in 2003 that a city could not ban soliciting and leafletting on a downtown pedestrian mall unless the city could justify it under the strict-scrutiny standard.The case:

The First Amendment does not excuse the mass media from paying the normal business taxes that all businesses must pay.In which of these cases was a tax on a medium of communications upheld?

In U.S.v.Alvarez,the Court overturned what law,saying that there is no "general exception to the First Amendment for false statements"?