Citizens United Case and the First Amendment

Citizens United Case and the First Amendment

Assessment

Interactive Video

Social Studies, Moral Science, Philosophy

11th Grade - University

Hard

Created by

Emma Peterson

FREE Resource

The speaker discusses their involvement in the Citizens United case, emphasizing the importance of protecting political speech under the First Amendment. They argue against limiting speech by corporations and compare this to a case involving animal cruelty videos, highlighting inconsistencies in public opinion. The speaker concludes that political speech is essential and should be protected, even if other types of speech are considered valueless.

Read more

10 questions

Show all answers

1.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

30 sec • 1 pt

Why did the speaker become involved in the Citizens United case?

To oppose Hillary Clinton's candidacy

To promote corporate interests

To challenge the limitation on political speech

To support Senator McConnell's political career

2.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

30 sec • 1 pt

What was the main issue in the Citizens United case?

A debate on corporate tax policies

A law banning political advertisements

A dispute over election funding

A documentary criticizing Hillary Clinton

3.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

30 sec • 1 pt

How does the speaker view the protection of political speech?

As unnecessary in modern society

As the most important type of speech to protect

As equally important as all other types of speech

As less important than commercial speech

4.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

30 sec • 1 pt

What was the court's stance on the animal cruelty films?

They were banned by the Supreme Court

They were allowed only for educational purposes

They were protected under the First Amendment

They were considered valuable speech

5.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

30 sec • 1 pt

What inconsistency does the speaker highlight between the two cases?

Both cases were decided by different courts

Valueless speech is protected while political speech is restricted

Animal cruelty films are more harmful than political speech

Political speech is more regulated than commercial speech

6.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

30 sec • 1 pt

According to the speaker, what should be prioritized in terms of speech protection?

Political speech

Valueless speech

Artistic expression

Commercial speech

7.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

30 sec • 1 pt

What is the speaker's view on the social policy implications of the two cases?

Neither type of speech should be protected

Animal cruelty films should be prioritized over political speech

Political speech should be protected over harmful speech

Both types of speech should be equally restricted

Create a free account and access millions of resources

Create resources
Host any resource
Get auto-graded reports
or continue with
Microsoft
Apple
Others
By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy
Already have an account?