Chapter 3: Expressive Freedom and the First Amendment 63
ESSAY QUESTIONS
1. Discuss the constitutional arguments surrounding state and local efforts to force civic and social
clubs to admit women and minorities as members. How has the Supreme Court addressed this
issue?
2. Delineate and critique the three-part test for determining obscenity rendered in Miller v.
California. In your opinion does the Miller test clarify the legal definition of obscenity or fail to
do so?
3. Discuss the constitutional arguments surrounding efforts by certain communities to ban
pornography on the ground that it constitutes sex discrimination.
4. The “clear and present danger” test and the rule against “prior restraints” broadly protect certain
basic First Amendment freedoms. Discuss these two standards, commenting on leading cases in
which they have been applied by the Supreme Court. You should view the “clear and present
danger” test in broad historical context, including the reaffirmation of this test by the “imminent
lawless action” standard invoked in Brandenburg v. Ohio. Under what circumstances would the
“clear and present danger” test allow the government to place limitations on speech? Under what
circumstances would government be permitted to disregard the rule against prior restraints?
5. Trace the evolution of First Amendment interpretation in the field of political speech from
Schenck v. United States through Brandenburg v. Ohio. What external factors influenced the
Court’s choice of the “bad tendency” test over the “clear and present danger” test in such cases as
Abrams v. United States, Gitlow v. New York, and Whitney v. California? What factors influenced
the Court to adopt a restrictive of freedom of speech during the early 1950s? Is the standard
adopted in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) simply a reaffirmation of the “clear and present danger”
test, or does this newer standard provide greater protection of free speech? Discuss.
6. Restate and analyze the competing positions of the majority and the four dissenters in Texas v.
Johnson (1989). Is the majority opinion in this highly controversial “flag–burning” case consistent
with the Supreme Court’s previous development of freedom of expression? Discuss.
7. Restate the constitutional rule that the Supreme Court has applied to libel actions brought by
public officials, as originally enunciated in New York Times v. Sullivan. Is the Court justified in
according greater latitude to the media in commenting on public persons than in commenting on
private persons? What are the arguments in support of this differentiation? What are the opposing
arguments?
8. What kinds of expression are (a) most fully protected under the First Amendment, as interpreted
by the U.S. Supreme Court; (b) accorded more limited protection; and (c) given little, if any,
protection? Analyze the criteria that the Court has developed over roughly the past eighty years in
its efforts to distinguish among various kinds and degrees of constitutionally protected and
unprotected expression. Have the Court’s long-term efforts to distinguish protected from
unprotected expression been consistent? Do these efforts reflect consensus among the justices as
to the most important purposes served by the First Amendment in this broad area? What are the
most important purposes that you believe to be served by the First Amendment?
9. Discuss the Court’s ruling in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988). What is the
rationale put forth in the opinion? How did the Court interpret First Amendment protections