8.2 Freedom of Speech

Why did the courts strike down a California law preventing the public display of a Communist flag?

• The courts believed the law could lead to punishing legal opposition to government.

• The courts believed the red flag was intended to symbolically represent violence against the government.

• The courts believed the red flag represented the leading opposition to democracy- communism.

• The courts believed the law could lead to encouraging more people to oppose the government.

Why did the courts uphold the arrest of four young men who burnt their draft cards in protest of the Vietnam War?

• The courts ruled that the expressive conduct disrupted the government’s daily operations.

• The courts ruled that the expressive conduct was libelous and scandalous to the government.

• The courts believed the expressive conduct was detrimental to future generations.

• The courts believed the four young men do not have a right to protest the government.

Why did the courts allow the symbolic speech of wearing black armbands in Tinker v Des Moines School District?

• The silent protest did not create a “substantial classroom disruption.”

• The silent protest did not directly attack the political opinions of the government.

• The expressive conduct was intended to create awareness against racism in government policy.

• The expressive conduct was not defined as symbolic speech.

What implications has the Tinker Case had on other school related issues such as dress code?

• School officials can ban nearly anything if it can be proven to be a substantial classroom disruption.

• School officials must realize that student rights do not cease when they enter the school building.

• School officials must provide meaningful nonviolent ways for students to express themselves.

• School officials subject themselves to law suits if they are going to attack symbolic speech that may incite violence.

Why did the courts judge that flag burning should be a protected form of symbolic speech in Texas v Johnson?

• The court ruled that burning the flag “constituted expressive conduct” and should be protected by the First Amendment.

• The court ruled that the President has the direct responsibility to protect the symbolic meaning of the flag.

• The court ruled that the burning of the flag incited violence among political factions and should be outlawed.

• The court ruled that Congress should have the right to raise an army to attack protesters who disrespect the flag.

Why is seditious speech often outlawed or censored?

• The form of speech often incites violence or encourages breaking the law.

• The form of speech is always protected under the First Amendment.

• The form of speech is permitted unless it demonstrates reckless disregard for the government.

• The form of speech often promotes "lewd" and "obscene" language not permitted in public.

Which of the following methods is NOT used by the courts to determine the legality of seditious speech?

• Lemon Test

• Clear & Present Danger Test

• Imminent Lawless Action Doctrine

• Bad Tendency Doctrine

Why did Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argue that Socialist Schenck speech should not be protected?

• Schenck’s pamphlets created a “clear and present danger” for the government.

• Schenck's pamphlets incited violence against illegal immigrants leaving along the southern border.

• Schenck's pamphlets encouraged flag burning which is not a protected form of symbolic speech.

• Schenck's pamphlets created an excessive entanglement between the church and state.

How does libel and slander differ.

• Libel is written defamatory language; whereas, slander is spoken defamatory language.

• Libel is legal defamatory language; whereas, slander is illegal defamatory language.

• Libel is constitutionally protected language; whereas, slander is seditious language.

• Libel is defamation of the government; whereas, slander is defamation of a private citizen.

According to New York Times v Sullivan, when would the protected speech against a public official NOT be protected? (369)

• The newspaper’s speech would not be protected if it was made with reckless disregard for whether or not it was false.

• The newspaper's speech would not be protected if it was made in a satiric jest demonstrating artistic integrity.

• The newspaper's speech would not be protected if the public official was not employed directly by the government.

• The newspaper's speech would not be protected if the public official worked directly for the Judicial System.