JOMC 486 Test 1 2023 with complete solution

Brandenburg was convicted under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism law which prohibited (brandenburg vs. ohio) advocacy of violence to bring about industrial or political reform. Brandenburg was filmed at a rally of (brandenburg vs. ohio) the Ku Klux Klan. In the 1927 Whitney v. California decision, the U.S. Supreme Court had said a criminal syndicalism statute similar to Ohio's was (brandenburg vs. ohio) constitutional. According to the Supreme Court, advocating violent means to effect political change is unlawful only when (brandenburg vs. ohio) it is directed to incite imminent lawless action. Of what criminal offense was Johnson charged? (Texas vs. Johnson) Desecration of a venerated object. Which of the following is an interest the Texas used to justify Johnson's conviction? (Texas vs. Johnson) Preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood. The Supreme Court first had to determine whether Johnson's burning the flag was expressive conduct meaning (Texas vs. Johnson) he intended to convey a message that was likely to be understood by those who viewed it. In its majority opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that the restrictions on Johnson's expression were unrelated to the suppression of expression. (Texas vs. Johnson) (TRUE OR FALSE) false In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices White and O'Connor said the Texas law did not restrict Johnson's First Amendment rights because he could have expressed himself in several different ways other than flag-burning. (Texas vs. Johnson) (TRUE OR FALSE) true Barry Black burned a cross at a (virginia vs. black) rally of Ku Klux Klan members. Richard Elliott and Jonathan O'Mara burned a cross (virginia vs. black) on the front lawn of a neighbor. The "prima facie" provision of the Virginia law said jurors could presume (virginia vs. black) that the cross burning was done with the intent to intimidate others. The Supreme Court said the First Amendment allows states to punish cross burning done with an intent to intimidate because such acts amount to (virginia vs. black) a true threat. The plurality opinion found the Virginia statute unconstitutional because it (virginia vs. black) the prima facie provision eliminates the need to prove an intent to intimidate. Who is William Avery? (Drahota vs. NE) A former political science professor and Nebraska state senator. The Court of Appeals affirmed Drahota's conviction because (Drahota vs. NE) his speech constituted "fighting words." In its opinion, the Supreme Court of Nebraska said that the government may regulate or punish speech that causes emotional injury but does not provoke an immediate breach of the peace. (Drahota vs. NE) (TRUE OR FALSE) False. The Nebraska Supreme Court concluded Drahota's emails were not fighting words because (U.S. vs. Alvarez) Avery could not have immediately retaliated because he did not know who sent the emails. The court rejected the argument that Avery had the right to be left alone by pointing out that he was a public official at the time and therefore not entitled to the same privacy protections as private citizens. (U.S. vs. Alvarez) (TRUE OR FALSE) True Xavier Alvarez lied about having received the Medal of Honor when he (U.S. vs. Alvarez) introduced himself as a newly elected member of a water district board. Justice Kennedy said there is no general exception to the First Amendment for false statements because (U.S. vs. Alvarez) some falsehoods are inevitable in an open expression of views In cases of defamation and fraud, the First Amendment allows punishing false statements made with (U.S. vs. Alvarez) knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of falsity. Justice Kennedy lists a few instances in which federal law allows punishing one who makes a false statements. Which of the following is NOT one of those? (U.S. vs. Alvarez) False statement made on a job application for a private employer. One problem Justice Kennedy finds with the Stolen Valor Act is that it (U.S. vs. Alvarez) is almost limitless in the times and settings to which it applies. Justice Kennedy described the government's interest in protecting military honors as a means of expressing the nation's gratitude for veterans' heroism as (U.S. vs. Alvarez) compelling Justice Kennedy said the government could justify the Stolen Valor Act only if it could show (U.S. vs. Alvarez) the law was actually necessary to achieve its interest. What was the U.S. government seeking to do in this case? (NY Times vs. US) Prevent the newspapers from publishing classified documents.