CJE Exam Questions with 100% Verified Answers Latest
Update
Question: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1942)
Answer:
BOE required teachers and students to salute flag. Refusal to salute was considered
insubordination, punishable by expulsion and charges of delinquency. In 6-to-3 decision,
Court overruled its decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis and held that compelling
public schoolchildren to salute the flag was unconstitutional. The Court found that such a
salute was a form of utterance and was a means of communicating ideas.
Question: New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
Answer:
This U.S. Supreme Court case extended the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech to
libel cases brought by public officials. The Supreme Court sought to encourage public
debate by changing the rules involving libel that had previously been the province of state
law and state courts, and that a public official cannot receive damages unless statements
were made in "actual malice."
LB. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner responsible for supervising the city police
department, filed a libel suit against four African American clergymen and the New York
Times in Alabama state court, alleging an ad seeking contributions to the civil rights
movement libeled him. The judge instructed the jury that under Alabama law, if the
statements were found libelous, falsity and malice were presumed, and damages could be
awarded without direct proof of financial loss. The jury concluded that the statements did
concern Sullivan and awarded him $500,000 for injuries to his reputation and profession.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Rule of Law applied by Alabama violated
the First Amendment.
Question: Brandenburg v. Ohio (1968)
Answer:
Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted
under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law made illegal advocating "crime, sabotage,
violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or
political reform," as well as assembling "with any society, group, or assemblage of persons
formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism." The Court's opinion held
that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a
two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at
inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such
action." The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines
while ignoring whether that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless
action. Failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the
Constitution.
Question: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District - 1969
, Answer:
The Supreme Court decision declared students' First Amendment rights did not stop at the
school door. They had the right to express their political views, in this particular case with
black arm bands as a protest of the Vietnam War, as long as the expression did not disrupt
class work or disrupt the rights of others.
Question: Bethel School District v. Fraser-(1986)
Answer:
Matthew Fraser made a nominating speech at an assembly, lewd and sexual in nature, and
he was disciplined. The Court ruled the school was within its right to prohibit vulgar
language at school. The court declared that vulgar speech is not politically protected
speech.
Question: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeiern 1988
Answer:
this case established standard for censorship of school newspapers. The Court ruled school
officials could exercise prior restraint if/when a student newspaper was produced as a
"regular classroom activity" rather than a "forum for public expression." That standard
means that most high school papers now are assumed not to have First Amendment
protections, while most college newspapers are. The case began when the principal pulled
two articles from the school newspaper, one on divorce and one on teen pregnancy.
Question: Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Answer:
In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag to
protest Reagan administration policies. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law
outlawing flag desecration. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the
conviction, the case went to the Supreme Court. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that
Johnson's burning of a flag was protected expression under the First Amendment. The Court
found that Johnson's actions fell into the category of expressive conduct and had a
distinctively political nature.
Question: Yeo. v. Town of Lexington (1998)
Answer:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously ruled that student journalists
have the right to refuse ads submitted to their publications. This case demonstrates the
importance of a school publication with public forum status. The case arose when student
yearbook/newspaper editors at Lexington High School in Massachusetts refused to print an
ad submitted by Douglas Yeo in 1992 encouraging sexual abstinence by students. The
student publications had an unwritten policy of not accepting political or advocacy ads, but
did offer Yeo to present his message in a letter to the editor. Yeo turned that down.
Students and school officials maintained the school's policy and practice had been to allow
, students to control the content of their publications.
Question: Dean v. Utica (2004)
Answer:
This case reflects limits to the Hazelwood decision. Students were about to publish a story in
their student newspaper, the Arrow, about a lawsuit filed against their school district
concerning the ill effects of diesel fumes from the bus garage. As the paper was to go to
press, school officials told the adviser it could not be published. Editor Katy Dean contested
the censorship. The court concluded the Arrow was a public forum, and even if the paper
was a non-public forum to which the Hazelwood standard applied, the court ruled that the
censorship of the Arrow was unreasonable.
Question: Morse v. Frederick - (2006)
Answer:
At a school-supervised event, Joseph Frederick held up a banner with the message "Bong
Hits 4 Jesus." Principal Deborah Morse took away the banner and suspended Frederick for
10 days. The court ruled in 2006 school officials can prohibit students from displaying
messages that promote illegal drug use.
Question: Censorship
Answer:
Administration or others in authority outside the publications staff banning publication of
certain stories or items.
Question: Prior review
Answer:
Administration or others in authority outside the publications staff reading to review all
stories and items in the publication prior to print.
Question: Forum publication
Answer:
A school publication that has been designated as a public forum for student expression -
also, student editors must clearly have been allowed to make final decisions about the
content of the publication
Question: Hazelwood's weaker protections do not apply to all public high school student
media. There are two types of school-sponsored student media: so-called "public forum"
student media (which includes "limited public forums," such as the Arrow), where student
editors have, by policy or practice, been allowed to make their own editorial decisions, and
non-public, where school officials have routinely exercised more authority over content.
Public forum student media, the judge in Dean affirmed, are protected by the much more
protective Tinker standard, which prohibits censorship of otherwise lawful speech except
Update
Question: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1942)
Answer:
BOE required teachers and students to salute flag. Refusal to salute was considered
insubordination, punishable by expulsion and charges of delinquency. In 6-to-3 decision,
Court overruled its decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis and held that compelling
public schoolchildren to salute the flag was unconstitutional. The Court found that such a
salute was a form of utterance and was a means of communicating ideas.
Question: New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
Answer:
This U.S. Supreme Court case extended the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech to
libel cases brought by public officials. The Supreme Court sought to encourage public
debate by changing the rules involving libel that had previously been the province of state
law and state courts, and that a public official cannot receive damages unless statements
were made in "actual malice."
LB. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner responsible for supervising the city police
department, filed a libel suit against four African American clergymen and the New York
Times in Alabama state court, alleging an ad seeking contributions to the civil rights
movement libeled him. The judge instructed the jury that under Alabama law, if the
statements were found libelous, falsity and malice were presumed, and damages could be
awarded without direct proof of financial loss. The jury concluded that the statements did
concern Sullivan and awarded him $500,000 for injuries to his reputation and profession.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Rule of Law applied by Alabama violated
the First Amendment.
Question: Brandenburg v. Ohio (1968)
Answer:
Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted
under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law made illegal advocating "crime, sabotage,
violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or
political reform," as well as assembling "with any society, group, or assemblage of persons
formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism." The Court's opinion held
that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a
two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at
inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such
action." The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines
while ignoring whether that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless
action. Failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the
Constitution.
Question: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District - 1969
, Answer:
The Supreme Court decision declared students' First Amendment rights did not stop at the
school door. They had the right to express their political views, in this particular case with
black arm bands as a protest of the Vietnam War, as long as the expression did not disrupt
class work or disrupt the rights of others.
Question: Bethel School District v. Fraser-(1986)
Answer:
Matthew Fraser made a nominating speech at an assembly, lewd and sexual in nature, and
he was disciplined. The Court ruled the school was within its right to prohibit vulgar
language at school. The court declared that vulgar speech is not politically protected
speech.
Question: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeiern 1988
Answer:
this case established standard for censorship of school newspapers. The Court ruled school
officials could exercise prior restraint if/when a student newspaper was produced as a
"regular classroom activity" rather than a "forum for public expression." That standard
means that most high school papers now are assumed not to have First Amendment
protections, while most college newspapers are. The case began when the principal pulled
two articles from the school newspaper, one on divorce and one on teen pregnancy.
Question: Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Answer:
In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag to
protest Reagan administration policies. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law
outlawing flag desecration. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the
conviction, the case went to the Supreme Court. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that
Johnson's burning of a flag was protected expression under the First Amendment. The Court
found that Johnson's actions fell into the category of expressive conduct and had a
distinctively political nature.
Question: Yeo. v. Town of Lexington (1998)
Answer:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously ruled that student journalists
have the right to refuse ads submitted to their publications. This case demonstrates the
importance of a school publication with public forum status. The case arose when student
yearbook/newspaper editors at Lexington High School in Massachusetts refused to print an
ad submitted by Douglas Yeo in 1992 encouraging sexual abstinence by students. The
student publications had an unwritten policy of not accepting political or advocacy ads, but
did offer Yeo to present his message in a letter to the editor. Yeo turned that down.
Students and school officials maintained the school's policy and practice had been to allow
, students to control the content of their publications.
Question: Dean v. Utica (2004)
Answer:
This case reflects limits to the Hazelwood decision. Students were about to publish a story in
their student newspaper, the Arrow, about a lawsuit filed against their school district
concerning the ill effects of diesel fumes from the bus garage. As the paper was to go to
press, school officials told the adviser it could not be published. Editor Katy Dean contested
the censorship. The court concluded the Arrow was a public forum, and even if the paper
was a non-public forum to which the Hazelwood standard applied, the court ruled that the
censorship of the Arrow was unreasonable.
Question: Morse v. Frederick - (2006)
Answer:
At a school-supervised event, Joseph Frederick held up a banner with the message "Bong
Hits 4 Jesus." Principal Deborah Morse took away the banner and suspended Frederick for
10 days. The court ruled in 2006 school officials can prohibit students from displaying
messages that promote illegal drug use.
Question: Censorship
Answer:
Administration or others in authority outside the publications staff banning publication of
certain stories or items.
Question: Prior review
Answer:
Administration or others in authority outside the publications staff reading to review all
stories and items in the publication prior to print.
Question: Forum publication
Answer:
A school publication that has been designated as a public forum for student expression -
also, student editors must clearly have been allowed to make final decisions about the
content of the publication
Question: Hazelwood's weaker protections do not apply to all public high school student
media. There are two types of school-sponsored student media: so-called "public forum"
student media (which includes "limited public forums," such as the Arrow), where student
editors have, by policy or practice, been allowed to make their own editorial decisions, and
non-public, where school officials have routinely exercised more authority over content.
Public forum student media, the judge in Dean affirmed, are protected by the much more
protective Tinker standard, which prohibits censorship of otherwise lawful speech except
