JOMC 486 – Midterm Exam Actual Study
Questions with 100% Correct Answers
1. directed, imminent, likely - ANSWER "The First Amendment does not
allow states to forbid or proscribe the advocacy of the use of force or law
violation except where such advocacy is -- to inciting or producing --
lawless action and is -- to incite or produce such action." - Brandenburg v
Ohio (1969)
2. Brandenburg Test - ANSWER States may punish speech that is seditious or
may encourage criminal behavior if there is evidence of:
- An intent to incite violence or lawlessness
- imminence of violence or lawlessness and
- a liklihood of that violence or lawlessness
3. U.S. v O'Brien - ANSWER To protest the Vietnam War draft, a man burned
his draft card. The back of the card carried a statement that the knowing
destruction of the card was illegal. He was arrested, prosecuted, and
convicted under the Selective Service Act for the destruction. He appealed to
the Supreme Court, arguing for First Amendment Protection. The Supreme
Court sided with the government, citing that the government had a legitimate
interest in preventing the destruction of the card and that he had other ways
to express his message of protest.
4. Absolute Privilege - ANSWER The law recognizes some situations in
which people have an absolute privilege to speak, even if their words
defame. Legislators, city council members, police, prosecutors, and other
officials speaking within the scope of their duties and witnesses in a court
proceeding or legislative hearing are immune.
,5. State senator vs Professor - ANSWER State Sen. Steve Erdman writes on a
blog published on his official website called "Straight Talk with Steve," and
accused a UNL professor, Gerard Harbison of trolling a student and
threatening her with death or bodily harm. Harbison sued Erdman for libel.
Erdman was not acting in his official capacity and thus could not claim
absolute privilege.
6. Public official - ANSWER A person in government who has or appears to
have substantial responsibility for or control over government affairs with a
high enough rank that the public has an interest in that person's performance
and qualifications.
7. Gertz v Robert Welch Inc. - ANSWER An attorney hired to represent a
family whose son was shot by a police officer was the subject of an article in
a magazine alleging he was a communist. He sued the paper for defamation
because the allegations were false and harmful. The Supreme Court ruled in
his favor, saying private persons do not need to prove actual malice because
they do not have equal access to the media and limits the recourse private
persons can reasonably get against public figures or the media.
8. Private individuals - ANSWER Because they have not invited public
scrutiny, do not have equal media access and are not shaping public affairs, -
- -- do not need to prove actual malice.
9. The judge - ANSWER -- --, not the jury, decides whether the plaintiff is a
public official/figure or a private individual
10.Publication - ANSWER Communication by the defendant to a third person.
Privacy is not invaded by communicating to a few people.
,11.Private facts - ANSWER Only the disclosure of -- -- is actionable. Publicity
to public information or matters that occur in public cannot be the basis of a
lawsuit.
12.Generally considered private - ANSWER Among these are things -- -- --:
- Sexual relations
- Disgraceful or humiliating illness
- Intimate personal communication
- Relations with family and close friends
- personal finances
This list is NOT exhaustive.
13.O'Brien Test - ANSWER State interest in regulating conduct is sufficient to
justify some limitations on expression if:
- The regulation is within the Constitutional power of the government
- It furthers a substantial government interest
- It is unrelated to the suppression of expression
- Any incidental restriction on First Amendment freedoms is no greater
than necessary for furthering the governmental interest
14.O'Brien decision - ANSWER The government could defend the ban on draft
card burning because the cards were...
- A substantial administrative aid
- Proof of registration
- An indication of eligibility for classification
- A means of facilitating communication between the registrant and
draft board
- A reminder of the registrant's obligations
- A means of generally easing the burdens of administering the draft
15.Texas v Johnson - ANSWER A protestor burned an American flag during
the RNC to protest Reagan. He was arrested and prosecuted under a state
law prohibiting flag desecration. His conviction was reversed by an appeals
, court, and the state appealed the the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
sided with the appeals court, claiming the government's interest in protecting
the "integrity" of the flag and the "message of national unity" resulted in a
content-based restriction on expression.
16.Reed v Town of Gilbert, AZ - ANSWER A town ordinance regulated when
and where different types of signs could be posted, with harsh limits on a
local church's directional signs to services. The church's leader sued,
claiming it was an infringement of his speech and free exercise of religion.
The court found the ordinance content-based and overturned it based on the
First Amendment.
17.Fighting words - ANSWER "Words by which their very utterance inflict
injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" - Chaplinsky v
New Hampshire (1942)
18.Hate speech - ANSWER The US Supreme Court declared the regulation of
fighting words must be content-neutral, thus striking down many regulations
on -- --, such as those that prohibited racial, religious and ethnic fighting
words specifically.
19.RAV v City of St. Paul, MN - ANSWER A minor burned a makeshift cross
on the lawn of his neighbors, a Black family. He was prosecuted under a city
hate-speech law prohibiting fighting words likely to arouse fear, anger, or
resentment based on race, religion, or national origin. The Supreme Court
ruled that cross-burning could be regulated if it fell under a content-neutral
regulation of true threats and fighting words, which the St. Paul ordinance
did not. Laws need to walk the line between being broad enough so as to be
content-neutral, but narrow enough to serve a specific purpose.
20.Seditious Speech - ANSWER Calls for political, social, or economic change
through violent, unlawful means. It may be spoken or written. Legal concern
Questions with 100% Correct Answers
1. directed, imminent, likely - ANSWER "The First Amendment does not
allow states to forbid or proscribe the advocacy of the use of force or law
violation except where such advocacy is -- to inciting or producing --
lawless action and is -- to incite or produce such action." - Brandenburg v
Ohio (1969)
2. Brandenburg Test - ANSWER States may punish speech that is seditious or
may encourage criminal behavior if there is evidence of:
- An intent to incite violence or lawlessness
- imminence of violence or lawlessness and
- a liklihood of that violence or lawlessness
3. U.S. v O'Brien - ANSWER To protest the Vietnam War draft, a man burned
his draft card. The back of the card carried a statement that the knowing
destruction of the card was illegal. He was arrested, prosecuted, and
convicted under the Selective Service Act for the destruction. He appealed to
the Supreme Court, arguing for First Amendment Protection. The Supreme
Court sided with the government, citing that the government had a legitimate
interest in preventing the destruction of the card and that he had other ways
to express his message of protest.
4. Absolute Privilege - ANSWER The law recognizes some situations in
which people have an absolute privilege to speak, even if their words
defame. Legislators, city council members, police, prosecutors, and other
officials speaking within the scope of their duties and witnesses in a court
proceeding or legislative hearing are immune.
,5. State senator vs Professor - ANSWER State Sen. Steve Erdman writes on a
blog published on his official website called "Straight Talk with Steve," and
accused a UNL professor, Gerard Harbison of trolling a student and
threatening her with death or bodily harm. Harbison sued Erdman for libel.
Erdman was not acting in his official capacity and thus could not claim
absolute privilege.
6. Public official - ANSWER A person in government who has or appears to
have substantial responsibility for or control over government affairs with a
high enough rank that the public has an interest in that person's performance
and qualifications.
7. Gertz v Robert Welch Inc. - ANSWER An attorney hired to represent a
family whose son was shot by a police officer was the subject of an article in
a magazine alleging he was a communist. He sued the paper for defamation
because the allegations were false and harmful. The Supreme Court ruled in
his favor, saying private persons do not need to prove actual malice because
they do not have equal access to the media and limits the recourse private
persons can reasonably get against public figures or the media.
8. Private individuals - ANSWER Because they have not invited public
scrutiny, do not have equal media access and are not shaping public affairs, -
- -- do not need to prove actual malice.
9. The judge - ANSWER -- --, not the jury, decides whether the plaintiff is a
public official/figure or a private individual
10.Publication - ANSWER Communication by the defendant to a third person.
Privacy is not invaded by communicating to a few people.
,11.Private facts - ANSWER Only the disclosure of -- -- is actionable. Publicity
to public information or matters that occur in public cannot be the basis of a
lawsuit.
12.Generally considered private - ANSWER Among these are things -- -- --:
- Sexual relations
- Disgraceful or humiliating illness
- Intimate personal communication
- Relations with family and close friends
- personal finances
This list is NOT exhaustive.
13.O'Brien Test - ANSWER State interest in regulating conduct is sufficient to
justify some limitations on expression if:
- The regulation is within the Constitutional power of the government
- It furthers a substantial government interest
- It is unrelated to the suppression of expression
- Any incidental restriction on First Amendment freedoms is no greater
than necessary for furthering the governmental interest
14.O'Brien decision - ANSWER The government could defend the ban on draft
card burning because the cards were...
- A substantial administrative aid
- Proof of registration
- An indication of eligibility for classification
- A means of facilitating communication between the registrant and
draft board
- A reminder of the registrant's obligations
- A means of generally easing the burdens of administering the draft
15.Texas v Johnson - ANSWER A protestor burned an American flag during
the RNC to protest Reagan. He was arrested and prosecuted under a state
law prohibiting flag desecration. His conviction was reversed by an appeals
, court, and the state appealed the the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
sided with the appeals court, claiming the government's interest in protecting
the "integrity" of the flag and the "message of national unity" resulted in a
content-based restriction on expression.
16.Reed v Town of Gilbert, AZ - ANSWER A town ordinance regulated when
and where different types of signs could be posted, with harsh limits on a
local church's directional signs to services. The church's leader sued,
claiming it was an infringement of his speech and free exercise of religion.
The court found the ordinance content-based and overturned it based on the
First Amendment.
17.Fighting words - ANSWER "Words by which their very utterance inflict
injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" - Chaplinsky v
New Hampshire (1942)
18.Hate speech - ANSWER The US Supreme Court declared the regulation of
fighting words must be content-neutral, thus striking down many regulations
on -- --, such as those that prohibited racial, religious and ethnic fighting
words specifically.
19.RAV v City of St. Paul, MN - ANSWER A minor burned a makeshift cross
on the lawn of his neighbors, a Black family. He was prosecuted under a city
hate-speech law prohibiting fighting words likely to arouse fear, anger, or
resentment based on race, religion, or national origin. The Supreme Court
ruled that cross-burning could be regulated if it fell under a content-neutral
regulation of true threats and fighting words, which the St. Paul ordinance
did not. Laws need to walk the line between being broad enough so as to be
content-neutral, but narrow enough to serve a specific purpose.
20.Seditious Speech - ANSWER Calls for political, social, or economic change
through violent, unlawful means. It may be spoken or written. Legal concern
