Back
0

Supreme Court and Free Speech Law

Description: This quiz covers the Supreme Court's decisions on free speech law.
Number of Questions: 14
Created by:
Tags: supreme court free speech first amendment
Start the Quiz
Attempted 0/14 Correct 0 Score 0
‹
›

Which of the following is not a protected category of speech under the First Amendment?

  1. Political speech

  2. Religious speech

  3. Commercial speech

  4. Obscenity

Show answer
Correct Option: D
Explanation:

Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment because it is considered to be harmful to society.

The Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) held that:

  1. The government may not prohibit speech that is likely to incite imminent lawless action.

  2. The government may prohibit speech that is likely to cause a breach of the peace.

  3. The government may prohibit speech that is offensive or insulting.

  4. The government may prohibit speech that is false or misleading.

Show answer
Correct Option: A
Explanation:

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court held that the government may not prohibit speech that is likely to incite imminent lawless action unless the government can show that there is a clear and present danger of such action.

The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Eichman (1990) held that:

  1. The government may not prohibit the burning of the American flag.

  2. The government may prohibit the burning of the American flag if it is done in a manner that is likely to cause a breach of the peace.

  3. The government may prohibit the burning of the American flag if it is done in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action.

  4. The government may prohibit the burning of the American flag if it is done in a manner that is offensive or insulting.

Show answer
Correct Option: A
Explanation:

In United States v. Eichman, the Supreme Court held that the government may not prohibit the burning of the American flag because it is a form of symbolic speech that is protected by the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) held that:

  1. Corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals.

  2. Corporations may not contribute to political campaigns.

  3. Corporations may contribute to political campaigns, but only if they do so through a political action committee (PAC).

  4. Corporations may contribute to political campaigns, but only if they do so in a manner that is not likely to influence the outcome of the election.

Show answer
Correct Option: A
Explanation:

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court held that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals, including the right to contribute to political campaigns.

The Supreme Court's decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015) held that:

  1. The government may not regulate the size or placement of signs on private property.

  2. The government may regulate the size or placement of signs on private property if it does so in a content-neutral manner.

  3. The government may regulate the size or placement of signs on private property if it does so in a content-based manner.

  4. The government may regulate the size or placement of signs on private property if it does so in a manner that is likely to cause a breach of the peace.

Show answer
Correct Option: B
Explanation:

In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the Supreme Court held that the government may regulate the size or placement of signs on private property if it does so in a content-neutral manner. This means that the government cannot regulate the size or placement of signs based on their content.

Which of the following is a content-neutral regulation of speech?

  1. A law that prohibits the use of profanity in public places.

  2. A law that prohibits the display of signs that are critical of the government.

  3. A law that prohibits the distribution of leaflets that advertise a particular product or service.

  4. A law that prohibits the use of loudspeakers in residential areas.

Show answer
Correct Option: D
Explanation:

A law that prohibits the use of loudspeakers in residential areas is a content-neutral regulation of speech because it does not regulate speech based on its content. The law applies equally to all types of speech, regardless of their content.

Which of the following is a content-based regulation of speech?

  1. A law that prohibits the use of profanity in public places.

  2. A law that prohibits the display of signs that are critical of the government.

  3. A law that prohibits the distribution of leaflets that advertise a particular product or service.

  4. A law that prohibits the use of loudspeakers in residential areas.

Show answer
Correct Option: B
Explanation:

A law that prohibits the display of signs that are critical of the government is a content-based regulation of speech because it regulates speech based on its content. The law only applies to speech that is critical of the government.

The Supreme Court's decision in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) held that:

  1. Public school officials may censor student speech that is disruptive or offensive.

  2. Public school officials may censor student speech that is political or controversial.

  3. Public school officials may censor student speech that is libelous or defamatory.

  4. Public school officials may censor student speech that is obscene or vulgar.

Show answer
Correct Option: A
Explanation:

In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court held that public school officials may censor student speech that is disruptive or offensive. The Court held that this type of censorship is permissible because it is necessary to maintain order and discipline in the school environment.

The Supreme Court's decision in Morse v. Frederick (2007) held that:

  1. Public school officials may censor student speech that is disruptive or offensive.

  2. Public school officials may censor student speech that is political or controversial.

  3. Public school officials may censor student speech that is libelous or defamatory.

  4. Public school officials may censor student speech that is obscene or vulgar.

Show answer
Correct Option: D
Explanation:

In Morse v. Frederick, the Supreme Court held that public school officials may censor student speech that is obscene or vulgar. The Court held that this type of censorship is permissible because it is necessary to protect the rights of other students to be free from harassment and intimidation.

The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Alvarez (2012) held that:

  1. The government may prohibit the display of the American flag on private property.

  2. The government may prohibit the display of the American flag in a manner that is likely to cause a breach of the peace.

  3. The government may prohibit the display of the American flag in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action.

  4. The government may prohibit the display of the American flag in a manner that is offensive or insulting.

Show answer
Correct Option:
Explanation:

In United States v. Alvarez, the Supreme Court held that the government may not prohibit the display of the American flag on private property. The Court held that this type of censorship is a violation of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court's decision in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018) held that:

  1. The government may compel pro-life pregnancy centers to provide information about abortion.

  2. The government may compel pro-life pregnancy centers to refer women to abortion providers.

  3. The government may compel pro-life pregnancy centers to post signs that say they do not provide abortions.

  4. The government may compel pro-life pregnancy centers to provide information about contraception.

Show answer
Correct Option:
Explanation:

In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, the Supreme Court held that the government may not compel pro-life pregnancy centers to provide information about abortion. The Court held that this type of compelled speech is a violation of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court's decision in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021) held that:

  1. Public school officials may censor student speech that is disruptive or offensive.

  2. Public school officials may censor student speech that is political or controversial.

  3. Public school officials may censor student speech that is libelous or defamatory.

  4. Public school officials may censor student speech that is obscene or vulgar.

Show answer
Correct Option:
Explanation:

In Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the Supreme Court held that public school officials may not censor student speech that is posted on social media outside of school hours. The Court held that this type of censorship is a violation of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court's decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) held that:

  1. Public school teachers may lead students in prayer.

  2. Public school teachers may pray silently to themselves during school hours.

  3. Public school teachers may pray with students outside of school hours.

  4. Public school teachers may not pray at all on school property.

Show answer
Correct Option: B
Explanation:

In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Supreme Court held that public school teachers may pray silently to themselves during school hours. The Court held that this type of prayer is a private religious expression that is protected by the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court's decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023) held that:

  1. The government may compel artists to create artwork that they do not want to create.

  2. The government may compel artists to display artwork that they do not want to display.

  3. The government may compel artists to sell artwork that they do not want to sell.

  4. The government may not compel artists to create, display, or sell artwork that they do not want to.

Show answer
Correct Option: D
Explanation:

In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the Supreme Court held that the government may not compel artists to create, display, or sell artwork that they do not want to. The Court held that this type of compelled speech is a violation of the First Amendment.

- Hide questions
ADVERTISEMENT

Find more quizzes from top tags

general knowledge
3615 Quizzes
119858 Questions
 technology
307 Quizzes
36705 Questions
 sports
963 Quizzes
19148 Questions
 history
1187 Quizzes
13475 Questions
 physics
598 Quizzes
13441 Questions
 biology
1160 Quizzes
12174 Questions
 science & technology
551 Quizzes
11015 Questions
 chemistry
490 Quizzes
9892 Questions
 maths
518 Quizzes
9324 Questions
 softskills
0 Quizzes
7131 Questions