test

Question 1

slander

Answer 1

knowingly false information intended to harm someone (verbal)

Question 2

libel

Answer 2

Published written knowingly false information intended to cause harm

Question 3

Schenck v. US background

Answer 3

Charles Schenck violating Espionage Act of 1917 via 15,000 flyers telling to resist draft and peacefully protest, exercise and assert 1st amendment rights, first time SCOTUS punished speaker, lost case, free speech clause in question

Question 4

1st amendment clauses (all abt free expression)

Answer 4

establishment
free exercise
speech
press
peaceful assembly
petition

Question 5

Schenck v. US ruling

Answer 5

In times of war, gov. is allowed to chip away at free speech, test “clear and present danger” established

Question 6

Brandenburg v. Ohio

Answer 6

Ohio law: Someone cannot endorse violence and terrorism

What abt free speech?

SCOTUS sides in favor of KKK guy bcz of new test that we use today, beyond mere words of advocacy to create a “high likelihood of imminent disorder or lawlessness,” what they said at that moment in a rural area did not create such a threat

Bigger than KKK guy, giving government ability to arrest based on simply disagreeableness or offensiveness

Question 7

Texas v. Johnson

Answer 7

Gregory Lee Johnson burns flag taken from bank in Dallas in street to protest Nixon, arrested by 48/50 states criminalizing flag desecration

FREE SPEECH

Johnson wins in SCOTUS, just bcz smth is offensive or disagreeable does not make it illegal

Question 8

West Virginia v. Barnette

Answer 8

West Virginia Board of Ed mandated flag salutes and pledge, family of Jehovahs witnesses refused, 6-3 decision overruled Minersville v. Gobitis, flag salutes unconstitutional to be MANDATED but cannot be forced

More than just pledge and salute, teachers cannot sponsor/force religious, political, or nationalistic beliefs (this is what it means to be a real american) in schools

Question 9

Tinker v. Des Moines

Answer 9

School made policy 2 days prior to silent armband protest against Vietnam war that armbands would be taken off or suspended until taking off, freedom of speech challenged

Question 10

Tinker v. Des Moines holding

Answer 10

7-2 for Tinker, armbands = speech, did not cause “material and substantial disruption,” kids can express themselves through attire and symbolic speech

Question 11

Bethel holding

Answer 11

Schools can punish students due to vulgar or explicit language if “inconsistent with the fundamental nature of public education”

Question 12

Morse holding

Answer 12

Bong hits 4 jesus

5-4 majority vote, school officials can prohibit students from speech/expression promoting illicit drug use

Question 13

Lemon v. Kurtzman

Answer 13

Has to pass 3-pronged lemon test for religious private schools to be funded by public government

Question 14

Wisconsin v. Yoder

Answer 14

Amish communities stop formal ed. after age 14, mode of life and religion inseparable and interdependent

Compulsory school attendance law up to age 16, Amish sue on grounds of free exercise

SCOTUS says that education gotten in the 2 years does not outweigh centuries of Amish deep-held convictions creating lawful and self-sufficient citizens and not having the community fall apart and therefore people cannot free exercise

Question 15

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Answer 15

in NY PRAYER by school, over speakers +w/teacher participating or appointing leader, a group opposing including stephen engel sued, said saying prayer violated Establishment clause, saying “God” made monotheistic religions and therefore denominational, students not doing it = they are singled out and they are forced to hear it, not exactly voluntary

Question 16

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeyer

Answer 16

Article of school newspaper on teen pregnancy and divorce, PRIOR RESTRAINT principal censors newspaper before it comes out

legal as school-sponsored

Question 17

NY Times v. US

Answer 17

This guy here Daniel Ellsberg former military analyst who works at the RAND Corporation details of decision-making plans in Vietnam and stuff abt Lyndon B. Johnson’s motivations in southeast asia vs. his public remarks as well as Nixon, Nixon filed restraining order, says it would undermine national security, presidents knew it wasnt going well vs. president saying that it is, courts stop publication using prior restraint

Question 18

NY TImes v. US holding

Answer 18

If national security truly was at stake, prior restraint is possible, but people need to know truth and this would not undermine national security, journalists need to investigate and ability for people to know and put pressure on gov. to do something, people who break the law will not tell on themselves, we need to hold accountable and give info to make informed decisions

Question 19

Bad tendency test

Answer 19

“Government may suppress any expression that has the tendency to incite crime or disrupt the public peace should be silenced.”
Least freedom, Gitlow v. New York, response to 1st red scare 1925

Question 20

Clear and Probable Danger test (ASK SEPKO ABT NAME)

Answer 20

“Government can suppress any expression to avoid grave danger, even if probability of dangerous result was relatively scarce.”
Dennis v. US 1951, second red scare, 2nd least freedom

Question 21

Clear and Present Danger test

Answer 21

“Government may suppress any expression only when there is clear and present danger that such speech will bring about harm.”
Schenck v. US, first time SCOTUS punished speaker based on content of speech instead of effect of speech

Question 22

Imminent Lawless Action Test/Incitement Test/Brandenburg Test

Answer 22

“Government may suppress expression only if it goes beyond mere advocacy, or words, to create a high likelihood of imminent disorder or lawlessness.”
Brandenburg v. Ohio, KKK members speech in forest, no violence was actually committed, free from government despite uncertainty from citizens like KKK members not being punished

Question 23

Civil liberties

Answer 23

Protections from the government

Question 24

Palko v. CT

Answer 24

Formula of selective incorp., fundamental rights without which neither liberty nor justice could exist from 14th amendment due process clause

Question 25

Near v. Minnesota

Answer 25

Freedom of press incorporated

Question 26

Gitlow v. NY

Answer 26

Freedom of speech incorporated + Bad tendency test

Question 27

Barron v. Baltimore

Answer 27

WHAARFS
Takings clause (private land seized for public use w/o adequate compensation) 5th amendment

Question 28

Unincorporated amendments

Answer 28

3rd Amend. Quartering of soldiers, 5th amendment grand jury indictment provision, and 7th amendment provision of jury in civil trials

Question 29

Lemon test

Answer 29

Secular legislative purpose

Secular impact (not advance or inhibit any religion)

Not create excessive gov. entanglement in religion