JOUR 303 ATTENDANCE
Texas v. Johnson
491 U.S. 397 (1989)
Facts: Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in front of Dallas City Hall, protesting the 1984 Republican convention. The flag had been stolen
Procedural History: Johnson was convicted under a Texas law banning flag - burning....
JOUR 303 ATTENDANCE
Texas v. Johnson
491 U.S. 397 (1989)
Facts: Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in front of Dallas City Hall,
protesting the 1984 Republican convention. The flag had been stolen
Procedural History: Johnson was convicted under a Texas law banning flag - burning.
His conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeals, but reinstated by the Texas
Court of Criminal appeals
Legal Issue: Is burning the flag in political protest protected by the First Amendment?
Decision: Five-member majority said it is. Law is content-based restriction that does not
serve a compelling state interest
Concurrences/Dissents: four justices said that the government may protect the flag as a
national symbol
Legal Rule: burning the flag as a form of political protest is protected by the First
Amendment, and cannot be prosecuted as a crime
In the legal citation of "Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404 (1898), what does the
number 397 indicate?
The page number of the case reported where the court decision begins
Under the British common law definition of libel as defined by William
Blackstone, if a statement that hurt someone's reputation was actually true
It was a more serious crime
The John Peter Zenger sedition case in 1734
Was a political victory but did not set a legal precedent that had to be followed in
subsequent cases
The free speech and free press provisions of the First Amendment of the US
Constitution apply to actions of al of the following EXCEPT
International Organizations
The constitutional requirement that statutes not be so vague that they are
impossible to understand is required by the
Fourteenth Amendment
Which of the following IS NOT a constitutionally acceptable way to react to a
Supreme Court ruling with which you disagree
Denounce the court and ignore the ruling
Which of the following was likely to be a clear violation of the 1789 Sedition Act?
Criticizing the president of the United States
Which of the following is likely to be a clear violation of the 1917 Sedition Act?
Telling war draftees to be conscientious objectors
, A primary reason why the U.S. Supreme Court upheld prosecutions under the
1917 Sedition Act was
The speech could undermine the war effort
Which of the following likely presents a "dangerous tendency"?
Calling for the overthrow of the government
In U.S. v. O'Brien, the Supreme Court upheld O'Brien's conviction for burning his
draft card on the grounds that
The purpose of the law against burning draft cards was to support the government's war
effort, not to limit speech
Which of the following likely presents a threat of "imminent lawless action"?
A speech from the steps of the state capitol building to a boisterous crowd, ending with,
"The GOvernor's in there. Let's go get him!"
In Elonis v. U.S., the Supreme Court reversed Elonis's conviction for his
Facebook posts threatening his ex-wife and others on the grounds that
His posts were not made with any intent to carry them out
The government's primary argument for stopping publication of the Pentagon
Papers was that
They contained information that would undermine the war effort
The primary rationale of the Supreme Court's decision in favor of The New York
Times and the Washington Post in New York Times v. U.S. was that
Releasing the historical information in the Pentagon Papers would not undermine the
war effort
Aside from possible prosecution under the Espionage Act, government and
military employees and contractors are likely subject to court proceedings under
Contracts they signed upon employment
First Amendment advocates see leak investigations and prosecutions as threats
to freedom of the press because
All of the above
-They may inhibit the press from uncovering government impropriety
-They are expensive to litigate
-They may expose the identities of confidential sources
The U.S. Supreme Court's deicsion in Near v. Minnesota was an early ruling for
the idea that
Offensive language is protected by the First Amendment
In light of Tinker v. Des Moines School District and later cases, schools may
punish student's speech
When it is disruptive to the educational purpose
Taxes and other regulations on the media must
Apply equally to media regardless of their content
Government restrictions on speech in a particular physical location must
Allow alternative means of conveying the message
L.B.Sullivan was not named in the "heed Their Rising Voices" ad that led to the
New York Times v. Sullivan case. But he argued that he was nevertheless libeled
in the ad because
The ad made false statements about the police department which he oversaw
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 EFT, 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 this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller SUPERGRADES01. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R143,41. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
