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-Neu...
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 S crutiny - 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 t he 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 Integra l 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 Offi cials 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 Pur pose 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. Chapli nsky 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 T hreats" 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) Miller v. California (1973) - Answer -Obscene Material not covered by 1st Determined by applying 'contemporary community standards' not 'national standards.' Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989) - Answer -Time/Place/Manner (T/P/M) Restrictions The Challenged Statute: 1- Must be CN 2- Must advance a substantial/ important interest that would be achieved less effectively without the regulation BUT is not substantially broader than necessary (literally Intermediate Scrutiny) 3- Must leave alternative channels for communicating the speaker's message (cannot be too expensive and must be accessible)
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Perfectscorer. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $13.39. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
