JOUR 371 Final Exam - ALL QUIZ QUESTIONS MAY 2022

JOUR 371 Final Exam - ALL QUIZ QUESTIONS MAY 2022 The term that describes the topics and people/parties over which a court has authority is: Jurisdiction. Among the 50 states, How court systems are structured and how judges are selected varies widely because each state establishes its own system. Bob was a tenant at College Apartments where a night swim event was held for tenants in the community pool. Bob had seen a movie on television in which pranksters put dye in pool water just before a night swim to stain the skin of anyone in the pool. Right before the night swim, Bob modified the prank by pouring gallons of chlorine bleach into the pool, thinking it would make the swimmers' skin itch. It did, but the bleach also caused serious skin burns, resulting in several swimmers being hospitalized. Bob admitted what he had done and said he was sorry. The injured tenants, though, still faced hospital bills and other expenses. They met and talked about what to do. The consensus was that Bob certainly didn't have enough money to pay their bills and that the company that made the movie shared the blame. If they decide to sue the moviemaker, what will they have to prove? A close, causal connection between the movie and Bob's actions. Many government secrets, military and otherwise, provide safety to citizens. A frequent problem, however, is that the "national security" outlier to First Amendment expression is often invoked: To hide information that, if disclosed, would provide accountability and embarrass government officials or operations - but pose no risk to public safety. Angry residents of Missouri gathered outside the state Capitol where a speaker said, "We ought to go in this building, find the lawmakers who favor gun control and beat them until they can give us a reason why the Second Amendment doesn't apply to us." If the speaker is arrested what standard will be applied to determine guilt or innocence? Whether the expression was incitement likely to result in imminent lawless action After a series of arson cases in which the homes of police officers were burned, a Local News anchor said on the air, "When this person is captured, the police ought to set his house on fire - with him in it." What legal principle applies? This is likely protected expression, given that media workers, despite strong words, have not been seen as engaging in actual incitement. In Mississippi, almost all state court judges are: Elected by popular vote to serve four-year terms. What do we know about obscenity? Obscene expression is an outlier and receives no First Amendment protection. Why are some laws/legal standards different for youths? The policy/rationale is that the reasoning powers of adulthood have not matured, or at least not fully matured, in youths Frank got a job at a car wash, and it wasn't long before he became frustrated at the number of customers who applied their brakes while their vehicles were being towed through the tunnel. This risked damage to the equipment as well as a pile-up in the tunnel. He started telling each driver entering the conveyor belt, "Keep your damn foot off the brake." His supervisor heard Frank say this to one driver and reported it to their boss. The boss fired Frank. What do you know about this? There's no First Amendment issue here. Right after graduation, Betsy landed a job as digital media specialist for Land's Beginnings, an online clothing store. Some days she was assigned to monitor comments on the company website. Her boss instructed her to remove any negative comments or reviews, leaving only comments praising Land's Beginnings and posting five-star ratings. Betsy didn't think this was an ethical practice and texted you because she knows you made an A back at Ole Miss in Communications Law. Betsy wants to know if removing the negative comments and reviews is illegal. You paid attention, so you tell her: No. It may be dishonest, but it's not illegal. The City of Oxford enacted an ordinance that read, "No music or other sounds that are too loud will be permitted in residential areas of the city limits between midnight and 8 a.m. Saturdays and weekdays and midnight and noon on Sundays." Is this a constitutional ordinance? No. The Constitution allows time, place and manner control of expression if there's a reason that serves the public interest - but it also requires precision. "Too loud" is highly subjective and would likely be unconstitutionally vague. Judy was a newly hired member of the History Department faculty at the University of Mississippi. She had earned her Ph.D. at the University of Memphis and remained a super-loyal fan of University of Memphis "Tiger" athletics. She placed a large Tiger logo on her office door and a sign that read, "Go Tigers, Beat ...." Underneath the sign she would place the name of any team competing against the University of Memphis, including the University of Mississippi. Her colleagues were incensed by this, especially when the sign on her door was configured to read, "GO TIGERS, BEAT OLE MISS." The colleagues' complaints made their way to University of Mississippi administrators who passed a rule saying, "No faculty office door may display any information other than the name and rank of the faculty member and the faculty member's office hours." What is the law here? While the Constitution permits state actors to create rules regulating the time, place and manner of expressions, those rules must also serve a reasonable purpose and not be artifices that appear to be neutral but are actually targeted at specific expressions. In the modern democracies that limit or ban certain expressions - such as racial epithets, criticism of a religion or swastikas - the underlying rationale is: Such expressions do not advance a culture. In the United States, the rationale for not banning pure "hate speech" is: A. People as individuals should be free to assign worth/value to an expression. B. Government is not allowed by the First Amendment to use popularity to control expression.