POLI 411 Exam 2 || A+ Graded Already.
Content-based restriction and Content-neutral restriction correct answers Two broad classes
of cases
Government regulates or punishes speech because of harm related to an idea; usually judged
by strict scrutiny correct answers Content-based restriction
Government regulates or punishes speech because of harm unrelated to an idea; usually
judged by "heightened scrutiny"; greater flexibility correct answers Content-neutral
restriction
Whether words used in such circumstances are of such a nature as to create a clear and
present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the U.S. has a right to
prevent. correct answers Schenck v. United States (1919)
Crime to teach the principles of Communism; seen as a very serious threat to the U.S.;
charged with violating Smith Act, which made it illegal to knowingly teach about
communism for purposes of overthrowing the government; prepared to attempt to throw the
U.S. government; upholds Dennis' conviction because he and his fellow communists are
actually attempting to put principles of communism in practice- not just having an academic
discussion. Existence of the conspiracy that creates the danger. "Courts must ask whether the
gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is
necessary to avoid the danger." More serious harm, the less likely it needs to be and vice
versa. correct answers Dennis v. U.S. (1951)
When may government engage in content-based regulation of speech? correct answers Key
question in Dennis v. U.S. (1951) (Speech that advocates illegality)
Made it illegal to speak of or advocate overthrowing the U.S. government. Was used by
Truman 11 times to prosecute suspected Communists. correct answers Smith Act (1940)
Brandenburg convicted in Ohio for inciting state violence by means for political reform;
threatened to take action against political figures; overturns Dennis standard; court has to
think of the gravity of the evil and assume probability to be near 1.0; court holds that it's
necessary to show both intent and immediate/imminent consequences; no discounting by the
likelihood of occurring; TEST: There must be intent and imminent or immediate
consequences correct answers Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
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? correct answers Key question in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) (Speech that
advocates illegality)
Intent and Consequences required by Brandenburg correct answers Justifications for
suppression of speech
Convicted of violating Indiana's rule against disorderly conduct for Vietnam War
demonstration. Police trying to direct crowd back up onto curb. Hess was standing off to the
side and shouted, which led to his arrest. Argument that Hess is trying to incite further
, lawlessness. Brandenburg standard was not met because intent and consequences are not
clear. Must be presence of imminent harm to limit speech. correct answers Hess v. Indiana
(1973)
Does speech that advocates illegal activity or the use of force is protected under the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution when it is not both intended and likely to
provoke imminent illegal activity? correct answers Key question in Hess v. Indiana (1973)
(Speech that advocates illegality)
Words that by their very nature inflict injury on those to whom they are addressed or incite
them to acts of violence (lobbying correct answers Fighting words
Nazi party wanted to parade down predominately Jewish community Skokie in 1978 in order
to harass the Jews. They were denied a permit so went to court. Illustrates the argument that
neo-Nazis are still protected under the principle of legal equality. (Laws must apply equally
to all groups). They are welcome to have the parade because in this situation they are
pursuing a lawful route to demonstrate. Jews are welcome to stay home and ignore due to
advanced notice. Not considered fighting words. correct answers Skokie v. National Socialist
Party (1978)
Did the district court improperly deny the National Socialist Party's request for a stay of the
district court's injunction? correct answers Key question in Skokie v. National Socialist Party
(1978, Supreme Court of Illinois)
Several teenagers burned a cross on a black family's lawn. The police charged one of the
teens under a local bias-motivated criminal ordinance which prohibits the display of a symbol
which "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion
or gender." R.A.V. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court; the justices held the ordinance
invalid on its face because "it prohibits otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the
subjects the speech addresses." The First Amendment prevents government from punishing
speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed. Under the
ordinance, for example, one could hold up a sign declaring all anti-semites are bastards but
not that all Jews are bastards. Government has no authority "to license one side of a debate."
In order to outlaw fighting words, it must be neutral for all parties. correct answers R.A.V. v.
St. Paul (1992) (Fighting words)
Is the ordinance overly broad and impermissibly content-based in violation of the First
Amendment free speech clause? correct answers Key question in R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992)
(Fighting words)
The court is pretty skeptical whenever a burden is placed on a unique group of people;
formally triggers strict scrutiny correct answers General Course Theme
During capital trial, aggravating evidence presented against Dawson. Prosecutor presented
evidence of Dawson's Aryan Prison Gang; Dawson had a Nazi swastika and a member of a
white supremacist group. The beliefs of Dawson are not directly relevant to the murder of a
white woman whom he killed when he burglarized her home. Not being killed because he is a
satanist; rather, it is because he is a murderer. correct answers Dawson v. Delaware (1992)
(Offensive Ideas)
Content-based restriction and Content-neutral restriction correct answers Two broad classes
of cases
Government regulates or punishes speech because of harm related to an idea; usually judged
by strict scrutiny correct answers Content-based restriction
Government regulates or punishes speech because of harm unrelated to an idea; usually
judged by "heightened scrutiny"; greater flexibility correct answers Content-neutral
restriction
Whether words used in such circumstances are of such a nature as to create a clear and
present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the U.S. has a right to
prevent. correct answers Schenck v. United States (1919)
Crime to teach the principles of Communism; seen as a very serious threat to the U.S.;
charged with violating Smith Act, which made it illegal to knowingly teach about
communism for purposes of overthrowing the government; prepared to attempt to throw the
U.S. government; upholds Dennis' conviction because he and his fellow communists are
actually attempting to put principles of communism in practice- not just having an academic
discussion. Existence of the conspiracy that creates the danger. "Courts must ask whether the
gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is
necessary to avoid the danger." More serious harm, the less likely it needs to be and vice
versa. correct answers Dennis v. U.S. (1951)
When may government engage in content-based regulation of speech? correct answers Key
question in Dennis v. U.S. (1951) (Speech that advocates illegality)
Made it illegal to speak of or advocate overthrowing the U.S. government. Was used by
Truman 11 times to prosecute suspected Communists. correct answers Smith Act (1940)
Brandenburg convicted in Ohio for inciting state violence by means for political reform;
threatened to take action against political figures; overturns Dennis standard; court has to
think of the gravity of the evil and assume probability to be near 1.0; court holds that it's
necessary to show both intent and immediate/imminent consequences; no discounting by the
likelihood of occurring; TEST: There must be intent and imminent or immediate
consequences correct answers Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
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? correct answers Key question in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) (Speech that
advocates illegality)
Intent and Consequences required by Brandenburg correct answers Justifications for
suppression of speech
Convicted of violating Indiana's rule against disorderly conduct for Vietnam War
demonstration. Police trying to direct crowd back up onto curb. Hess was standing off to the
side and shouted, which led to his arrest. Argument that Hess is trying to incite further
, lawlessness. Brandenburg standard was not met because intent and consequences are not
clear. Must be presence of imminent harm to limit speech. correct answers Hess v. Indiana
(1973)
Does speech that advocates illegal activity or the use of force is protected under the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution when it is not both intended and likely to
provoke imminent illegal activity? correct answers Key question in Hess v. Indiana (1973)
(Speech that advocates illegality)
Words that by their very nature inflict injury on those to whom they are addressed or incite
them to acts of violence (lobbying correct answers Fighting words
Nazi party wanted to parade down predominately Jewish community Skokie in 1978 in order
to harass the Jews. They were denied a permit so went to court. Illustrates the argument that
neo-Nazis are still protected under the principle of legal equality. (Laws must apply equally
to all groups). They are welcome to have the parade because in this situation they are
pursuing a lawful route to demonstrate. Jews are welcome to stay home and ignore due to
advanced notice. Not considered fighting words. correct answers Skokie v. National Socialist
Party (1978)
Did the district court improperly deny the National Socialist Party's request for a stay of the
district court's injunction? correct answers Key question in Skokie v. National Socialist Party
(1978, Supreme Court of Illinois)
Several teenagers burned a cross on a black family's lawn. The police charged one of the
teens under a local bias-motivated criminal ordinance which prohibits the display of a symbol
which "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion
or gender." R.A.V. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court; the justices held the ordinance
invalid on its face because "it prohibits otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the
subjects the speech addresses." The First Amendment prevents government from punishing
speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed. Under the
ordinance, for example, one could hold up a sign declaring all anti-semites are bastards but
not that all Jews are bastards. Government has no authority "to license one side of a debate."
In order to outlaw fighting words, it must be neutral for all parties. correct answers R.A.V. v.
St. Paul (1992) (Fighting words)
Is the ordinance overly broad and impermissibly content-based in violation of the First
Amendment free speech clause? correct answers Key question in R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992)
(Fighting words)
The court is pretty skeptical whenever a burden is placed on a unique group of people;
formally triggers strict scrutiny correct answers General Course Theme
During capital trial, aggravating evidence presented against Dawson. Prosecutor presented
evidence of Dawson's Aryan Prison Gang; Dawson had a Nazi swastika and a member of a
white supremacist group. The beliefs of Dawson are not directly relevant to the murder of a
white woman whom he killed when he burglarized her home. Not being killed because he is a
satanist; rather, it is because he is a murderer. correct answers Dawson v. Delaware (1992)
(Offensive Ideas)
