Con Law II Exam Questions with Correct Answers

Con Law II Exam Questions with Correct Answers Content-Based Restrictions - Answer-Restricts speech based on what it communicates (and can further be either viewpoint-based or viewpoint-neutral Viewpoint-based restrictions are presumptively unconstitutional Test is STRICT SCRUTINY Content-Neutral Resrictions - Answer-Restricts speech w/out regard to the substance of what it communicates Test is INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY *Most are Time/Place/Manner (TPM) restrictions **All T/P/M restrictions must be CN, not all CN must be T/P/M Strict Scrutiny - Answer-Reg must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest Intermediate Scrutiny - Answer-Reg must be substantially related to an important government interest(CANNOT BE OVERLY BROAD) Defamation -- ELEMENTS - Answer-1- A false statement purporting to be factual, 2- That is published or communicated to a third party, 3- In a negligent or malicious manner, that 4- Resulted in harm to the reputation of the subject of the statement, or other damages Categorical Exceptions to the First Amendment - Answer-Defamation -- NYT v. Sullivan Fighting Words -- Chaplinsky v. NH Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action -- Brandenburg v. Ohio Child Pornography [No Case] True Threats -- Virginia v. Black Obscenity -- Miller v. CA Speech Integral to Criminal Conduct [No Case] Commercial Speech [No Case] (all are technically content based by definition) ***IF IT'S CONTENT BASED, BUT IT'S NOT A CATEGORICAL EXCEPTION TO THE 1st, THEN APPLY STRICT SCRUTINY*** NY Times v. Sullivan (1964) - Answer-Established actual malice, did not establish public figures (Gertz later expanded) Actual Malice Standard 1- KNOWLEDGE THAT INFORMATION IS FALSE 2- RECKLESS DISREGARD THAT INFO IS FALSE Gertz v. Welch (1974) - Answer-Strict liability for defamation is unconstitutional Private citizens -- actual malice not req'd for defamation Public figures -- actual malice req'd for defamation --All Purpose v. Limited Purpose Public Figures --Public Officials always public figure (which type depends) All Purpose v. Limited Purpose Public Figures - Answer-All Purpose public figures are so prevalent, so famous, that they for all intents and purposes are part of the public discourse themselves. Limited Purpose public figures only insert themselves into public discourse relating to a particular subject or part of the community. Public Officials are always Public Figures, but will be either all purpose or limited purpose depending upon the individual. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) - Answer-"Fighting words", or language so offensive that it will cause immediate violence, are not protected by the 1st Amendment. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) - Answer-Can only regulate speech calling for illegal action if it is incitement to imminent lawless action (DILL). Otherwise it is protected under the 1st. DILL 1- Directed to 2- Inciting or producing 3- Imminent 4- Lawless action and is 5- Likely to incite or produce such action Virginia v. Black (2003) - Answer-"True Threats" not covered by 1st. True Threats 1- Statements 2- Where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of intent 3- to commit an act 4- Of unlawful violence 5- to a particular (group of) individual(s)