
AP Gov Ch 4 Court cases
Authored by Brian Huberty
Social Studies
11th Grade - University
Used 50+ times

AI Actions
Add similar questions
Adjust reading levels
Convert to real-world scenario
Translate activity
More...
Content View
Student View
12 questions
Show all answers
1.
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION
30 sec • 1 pt
was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the First Amendment's provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press to apply to the governments of U.S. states. Along with Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago (1897), it was one of the first major cases involving the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. It was also one of a series of Supreme Court cases that defined the scope of the First Amendment's protection of free speech and established the standard to which a state or the federal government would be held when it criminalized speech or writing.
Gitlow v New York
Lemon v Kutzman
Roth v US
Miller v California
2.
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION
30 sec • 1 pt
was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled in an 8–1 decision that Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act (represented through David Kurtzman) from 1968 was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The act allowed the Superintendent of Public Schools to reimburse private schools (mostly Catholic) for the salaries of teachers who taught in these private elementary schools from public textbooks and with public instructional materials.
Gitlow v New York
Lemon v Kurtzman
Roth v US
Miller v California
3.
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION
30 sec • 1 pt
along with its companion case Alberts v. California, was a landmark case before the United States Supreme Court which redefined the Constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment.
Gitlow v New York
Lemon v Kurtzman
Roth v US
Miller v California
4.
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION
30 sec • 1 pt
a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court where the court redefined its definition of obscenity from that of "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". It is now referred to as the three-prong standard or the Miller test.
Gitlow v New York
Lemon v Kurtzman
Roth v US
Miller v California
5.
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION
30 sec • 1 pt
a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of American public officials to sue for defamation. Specifically, it held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or person running for public office, not only must he or she prove the normal elements of defamation—publication of a false defamatory statement to a third party—he or she must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice", meaning that the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether or not it was true.
New York Times v Sullivan
Texas v Johnson
Red Lion Broadcasting Co v FCC
Mapp V Ohio
6.
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION
30 sec • 1 pt
a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag enforced in 48 of the 50 states. Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority in holding that defendant Gregory Lee Johnson's act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Johnson was represented by attorneys David D. Cole and William Kunstler.
New York Times v Sullivan
Texas v Johnson
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v FCC
Mapp v Ohio
7.
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION
30 sec • 1 pt
upheld the equal time provisions of the Fairness Doctrine, ruling that it was "the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences." However, it strongly suggested that broadcast radio stations (and, by logical extension, television stations) are First Amendment speakers whose editorial speech is protected. In upholding the Fairness Doctrine, the Court based its rationale partly on a scarce radio spectrum. The FCC, by administrative rule-making, had required that discussion of public issues be presented on broadcast stations, and that each side of those issues must be given fair coverage. As a result, the FCC added an "equal time rule" and a "response to personal attack" rule. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. challenged these rules as unconstitutionally infringing on the speech of the station's editorial judgment. Justice Byron White, writing for the majority, explained: "the FCC has included among the conditions of the Red Lion license itself the requirement that operation of the station be carried out in the public interest."
Texas v Johnson
Red Lion Broadcasting co. v FCC
Mapp v Ohio
New York Times v Sullivan
Access all questions and much more by creating a free account
Create resources
Host any resource
Get auto-graded reports

Continue with Google

Continue with Email

Continue with Classlink

Continue with Clever
or continue with

Microsoft
%20(1).png)
Apple
Others
Already have an account?