Discuss the below:
Review a chapter MODERN PRIOR RESTRAINTS
1. The Supreme Court first clearly held that prior censorship of the news media by government is usually unconstitutional in: a) Dennis v. U.S.; b) New York Times v. U.S.; c) Near v. Minnesota; d) Whitney v. California; e) Abrams v. U.S.
2. The law under scrutiny in Near v. Minnesota was what type of law? a.) common law; b.) equity law; c.) constitutional law; d.) administrative law; e.) statutory law.
3. In the "Pentagon Papers" case (New York Times v. U.S.), the Supreme Court overruled an attempt by the federal government to censor the nation's leading newspapers. The court so ruled primarily because: a) all nine justices felt the First Amendment should never allow prior restraint of major newspapers; b) seven justices felt prior restraint should never be allowed; c) the government did not adequately prove that national security was in jeopardy in this particular case; d) the government dropped its attempt to censor the press before the Supreme Court could decide the case; e) the case arose in the summer and the nine justices didn't want to interrupt their vacations.
4. In the "Pentagon Papers" case the position that freedom of the press should be absolute was supported by: a) all nine justices; b) only the Nixon appointees on the court; c) all six justices who voted in the majority; d) only Justices Black and Douglas, e) none of the nine justices.
5. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the print media cannot be licensed or arbitrarily denied distribution rights. Some of the leading cases that established this principle involved local government attempts to restrict the religious activities of the Jehovah's Witness movement. Which of these cases involved Jehovah's Witnesses? a) Lovell v. City of Griffin; b) Jones v. City of Opelika; c) Valentine v. Chrestensen; d) Grosjean v. American Press; e) both A and B.
6. The Supreme Court upheld a city's content neutral permit system for groups wishing to hold large events at a city park in the 2002 case of: a) Thomas v. Chicago Parks District; b) Frisby v. Schultz; c) Watchtower Bible and Tract Society v. Village of Stratton; d) Valentine v. Chrestensen; e) Lovell v. City of Griffin.
7. The Supreme Court held that a city cannot require a permit for door-to-door soliciting for political, religious or other non-commercial causes in the 2002 case of: a) Thomas v. Chicago Parks District; b) Frisby v. Schultz; c) Watchtower Bible and Tract Society v. Village of Stratton; d) Valentine v. Chrestensen; e) Lovell v. City of Griffin.
8. In the case of Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects: a) the Ku Klux Klan; b) the Communist Party; c) anti-abortion protesters; d) those who desecrate the American flag as a political protest; e) civil rights demonstrators.
9. In the case of U.S. v. Eichman, the Supreme Court overturned an act of Congress banning: a) the Ku Klux Klan; b) the Communist Party; c) anti-abortion protests; d) desecration of the American flag as a political protest; e) civil rights demonstrations.
10. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed a state to create free expression rights at private shopping centers under the state Constitution when no such rights exist under the U.S. Constitution. That occurred in: a) Frisby v. Schultz; b) Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus; c) Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board; d) Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins; e) Fashion Valley Mall v. NLRB.
11. In 2007, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed that there is a right to picket a store in a private shopping mall under the California state Constitution even though very few other states have chosen to follow its earlier decision recognizing this right. The case: a) Frisby v. Schultz; b) Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus; c) Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board; d) Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins; e) Fashion Valley Mall v. NLRB.
12. The Supreme Court ruled that "hate speech" (e.g., burning a cross as a symbolic act) is protected by the First Amendment in the case of: a) Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness; b) Ward v. Rock Against Racism; c) Whitney v. California; d) R.A.V. v. St. Paul; e) Wisconsin v. Mitchell.
13. In 2003 the Supreme Court clarified the decision cited in the previous question by holding that cross-burning is not protected by the First Amendment if it can be shown that it was intended to intimidate anyone. The 2003 case: a) R.A.V. v. St. Paul; b) Virginia v. Black; c) Wisconsin v. Mitchell; d) Scheidler v. National Organization for Women; e) Ward v. Rock Against Racism.
14. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has also ruled that a violent act motivated by racial hate may be punished more severely than the same act would be if it was not motivated by hate. The case? a) Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness; b) Ward v. Rock Against Racism; c) Whitney v. California; d) R.A.V. v. St. Paul; e) Wisconsin v. Mitchell.
15. In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the Supreme Court held that: a) the Boy Scouts are a "public accommodation;" b) the Boy Scouts are equivalent to a church; c) the Boy Scouts may forbid homosexuals to serve as scoutmasters; d) the Boy Scouts may exclude those who do not profess a belief in God; e) the Boy Scouts must accept even atheists.
16. In U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, the Supreme Court: a) overturned a ban on federal employees being paid for speaking or writing articles even on topics unrelated to their work; b) upheld the ban described in choice A; c) rejected a pay raise for federal workers; d) upheld a pay raise for federal workers; e) ordered the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to safeguard taxpayers' rights.
17. In 2006, the Supreme Court said the First Amendment does not protect public employees who act as whistle blowers by filing complaints with their superiors. The case: a) U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union; b) Friends of Park La Brea v. Williams; c) Garcetti v. Ceballos; d) Frisby v. Schultz; e) Virginia v. Black.
18. The California Supreme Court held that the state constitution does not guarantee a right to distribute literature inside a gated apartment complex in the case of: a) Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins; b) Young v. Raley's; c) Golden Gateway Center v. Golden Gateway Tenants Association; d) Friends of Park La Brea v. Williams; e) Waremart v. Progressive Campaigns.
19. In a 1994 decision, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court order forbidding anti-abortion demonstrations within 36 feet of the entrance to a clinic that performed abortions while ruling that a ban on approaching patients anywhere within 300 feet of a clinic was unconstitutional. The case: a) Planned Parenthood v. Casey; b) Madsen v. Women's Health Center; c) Roe v. Wade; d) Feminist Women's Health Center v. Blythe; e) Operation Rescue of Tarrant County v. Richards.
20. In Schenck v. Pro Choice Network, a 1997 decision, the Supreme Court held that: a) abortion protesters can be forbidden to enter a 15-foot "floating buffer zone" around clinic patrons; b) a 15-foot "floating buffer zone" around clinic patrons is unconstitutional--protesters have a right to approach patients; c) abortion protesters can be ordered to stay 500 feet away from clinics; d) abortion protesters can be barred from demonstrating anywhere in the same town as a clinic that does abortions; e) this decision did not concern abortion protests.
21. The Supreme Court upheld a law forbidding anti-abortion demonstrators to enter an eight-foot floating buffer zone around persons approaching a medical facility in the case of: a) Madsen v. Women's Health Center; b) Hill v. Colorado; c) Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network; d) Frisby v. Schultz; e) Lovell v. City of Griffin.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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 these are correct.
33. 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.
34. 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 these are correct.
35. 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.
36. 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 these are correct.
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. In Cooksey v. Futrell, what issue was before the Fourth Circuit? a) Political speech supporting a Republican candidate for office; b) Instructions on building a bomb; c) A libelous statement about an ex-spouse; d) Abortion clinic buffer zones; e) Dietary advice given without a license to do so.