Practice Review for MIS 3320 - Final Exam Q&A 100% Correct 2024/2025

Practice Review for MIS 3320 - Final Exam Q&A 100% Correct 2024/2025 Schenck v. U.S. (1919) - CORRECT ANSWER-*threats to national security* FACTS: During World War I, Schenck mailed circulars to draftees. The circulars suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system. The circulars urged "Do not submit to intimidation" but advised only peaceful action such as petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. ISSUES: Are Schenck's actions (words, expression) protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment? DECISION: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against PRECEDENT: Holmes, speaking for a unanimous Court, concluded that Schenck is not protected in this situation. The character of every act depends on the circumstances. "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." During wartime, utterances tolerable in peacetime can be punished. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) - CORRECT ANSWER-*prior restraint v. 1st Amendment* FACTS: Brandenburg, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, 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." ISSUES: Did Ohio's criminal syndicalism law, prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities, violate Brandenburg's right to free speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments? DECISION: 8 votes for Brandenburg, 0 vote(s) against PRECEDENT: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly The Court's Per Curiam 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 or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action. The failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution. Gitlow v. New York (1925) - CORRECT ANSWER-FACTS: Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested for distributing copies of a "left-wing manifesto" that called for the establishment of socialism through strikes and class action of any form. Gitlow was convicted under a state criminal anarchy law, which punished advocating the overthrow of the government by force. At his trial, Gitlow argued that since there was no resulting action flowing from the manifesto's publication, the statute penalized utterences without propensity to incitement of concrete action. The New York courts had decided that anyone who advocated the doctrine of violent revolution violated the law. ISSUES: Is the New York law punishing advocacy to overthrow the government by force an unconstitutional violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment? Threshold issue: Does the First Amendment apply to the states? DECISION: Yes, by virtue of the liberty protected by due process that no state shall deny (14th Amendment). On the merits, a state may forbid both speech and publication if they have a tendency to result in action dangerous to public security, even though such utterances create no clear and present danger. The rationale of the majority has sometimes been called the "dangerous tendency" test. The legislature may decide that an entire class of speech is so dangerous that it should be prohibited. Those legislative decisions will be upheld if not unreasonable, and the defendant will be punished even if her speech created no danger at all. Lovell v. Griffin (1938) - CORRECT ANSWER-• involves an ordinance from a city in Georgia (Griffin) • case where it tests whether a community can protect itself against unpopular opinions • Griffin City Council responded to citizens complaints against Jehovah's witnesses • city made it illegal to distribute pamphlets w/o getting permission from city manager • city manager could grant/deny/revoke permission at will • Lovell ignores requirement and is arrest and fined $50 for not getting permission; says can't afford • goes to USS