Exam 3: Speech Distinctions

Under the Supreme Court's decision in Chaplinsky v.New Hampshire,government may punish fighting words when speech

Discuss the test developed by the U.S.Supreme Court in Brandenburg v.Ohio,explain how it relates to the bad tendency and clear and present danger tests,and describe its role in U.S.Supreme Court decision-making.

Symbolic speech exists when

First Amendment protections are not absolute.

A newspaper published a classified advertisement that said,"Having trouble? Need to remove someone? Contact me to get rid of your problems.Bill." Dick hired Bill to kill his golfing partner,Frank.Frank's family sued the newspaper.A court likely would find

When a law is challenged as applied,courts judge the law's constitutionality based entirely on the language of the law.

Many of the speech harms identified by Congress and reviewed by the Supreme Court either implicitly or explicitly incorporate the notion of a reasonable person.Critique this reasonable person standard given the First Amendment's apparent assumption that laws should not unnecessarily abridge the freedom of speech.

The First Amendment protects an individual's right not to speak and limits the power of government to force individuals to sign oaths or join particular groups.

Categorical balancing

The Supreme Court has held that student speech rights must be balanced against the needs of the schools.

Incorporation is the name of the concept that the Fourteenth Amendment extends the reach of the Bill of Rights to apply equally to state governments.

Although the Supreme Court's decision in Elonis v.United States did not clearly define them,the Court previously established that true threats may be punishable when

National security and the education and protection of immature children are sufficiently important government interests that laws to advance these interests may infringe upon First Amendment rights without violating the Constitution.

The "chilling effect" occurs when

The explicit text of the U.S.Constitution

Chilling effect is the name used to describe

The Supreme Court currently uses the clear and present danger test to decide when the First Amendment allows government to punish disruptive speech.

Given the role of the schools in inculcating values and teaching social responsibility,the U.S.Supreme Court in Tinker v.Des Moines Independent School District said school officials may prohibit student speech that might potentially disrupt school activities.

In Brandenburg v.Ohio,the U.S.Supreme Court said the advocacy of violence is protected speech unless it is intended to and likely to incite imminent violence or illegal activity.

In Tinker v.Des Moines Independent School District,the U.S.Supreme Court ruled that public schools may punish disruptive student protests that disturb educational activities.