Title: 13-01pp.439
1. In Schenck v. United States the Court created the _______.
2. Gitlow is an important case because it _______.
3. The Preferred Freedoms Doctrine states that _______.
4. Moving full circle from Schenck to Brandenburg, the Court settled on which test in
Brandenburg?
5. In Tinker v. Des Moines the Court held that _______.
6. In West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette the Court ruled that the right to free speech
includes the right to not speak.
7. In Morse v. Frederick the Court decided that _______.
8. Content-based speech regulations _______.
9. Which of the following at is an example of a content-neutral regulation? _______
10. In terms of Freedom of Association, the Rehnquist Court generally _______.
11. The “fighting words” doctrine was enunciated in _______.
12. In Snyder v. Phelps Justice Alito broke from his traditional coalition and wrote a dissenting
opinion. Why did he do so?
13. According to R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the government_______.
14. How does the clear and probable danger test differ from the clear and present danger test?
15. Which of the following is an example of a clear and present danger?
16. Why are restrictions on speech often associated with times of crisis?
17. How does the Court’s decision in Abrams differ from the standard it set in Schenck?
18. Explain the difference between the clear and present danger test and the clear and probable
danger test.
19. What is the preferred freedoms doctrine and how does it relate to the freedom of speech?
20. Explain three conditions that may trigger valid government regulation of expression.
21. Explain the standard the Court uses to determine whether an utterance may be considered
fighting words.
22. What rationale led the Court to hold that the city of St. Paul in R.A.V. violated the First
Amendment while it held Mitchell’s First Amendment rights were not violated by a Wisconsin
law a year later in Wisconsin v. Mitchell?
23. Explain why, in light of Tinker, the Court was willing to allow the school to suspend students
for holding the “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” banner in Morse v. Fredrick?
24. Give three reasons the court turned back to a more conservative approach to the First
Amendment in the early 1950s.
25. Explain the concept of prior restraint and provide at least two examples of government use of
prior restraint.
26. How has the Court determined that symbolic speech can qualify for First Amendment
protection?
27. Why is it so difficult for the Court to decide offensive and hate speech cases?
28. Explain the rationale the Court has used to determine that citizens have the right not to speak.
29. The First Amendment is clear in its protection of the freedom of expression: “Congress shall
make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to
peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” However, only
Justices Black and Douglas have ever adhered to a literalist interpretation of the Freedom of
Expression Clause. All other justices have been willing to place some restrictions on the freedom
of expression. Discuss the evolution of standards the Court has used to adjudicate freedom of
expression from Schenck to Brandenburg and explain why the Court has not adhered to a single
position, instead changing standards depending on the circumstances of the case. Why has the
Court been more willing to restrict freedom of expression at certain times and allowed more
liberal standards at other times? Are you satisfied with the standards that the Court has provided?
Do you feel that the standards should be more or less precise, allowing for more or less freedom
in interpreting the standards? Why?
30. Jeremy Stevens, an ardent leftist, was known for his outrageous stunts in his high school of
four hundred students in rural Southwest Minnesota. In his freshman year he came to school
dressed in a skirt to protest the policy that, while skirts may be worn, no shorts may be worn to
school between November 1 and April 1. When he was sent home for indecent conduct, he
returned in a traditional Scottish kilt. While under suspension for violating school rules Stevens
was granted the right to wear skirts after he sought the advice of the local American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) chapter. During his junior year he drafted an editorial cartoon for the
school newspaper that depicted the principal as a drunkard. While the ACLU again wanted to
help, it was bound by the Supreme Court’s precedent that schools may edit, and restrict content
in, school newspapers. Stevens’s senior year has been tame, but he did wear a T-shirt to school
that proclaimed, “the president is a terrorist.” School officials asked him to remove the shirt or
go home and change. When he refused, Stevens was suspended for two days. After consulting
with the ACLU again, Stevens has decided to sue the school district for violating his freedom of
speech found in the First and Fourth Amendments. The case has gone through the courts and has
now reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
As a justice on the Court, how would you rule given the line of free speech cases decided by the
Court? Should Stevens be allowed to wear his T-shirt? Why or why not? Be sure to cite cases
from class to support your answers. There is no right answer, but all your arguments must be
logical and supported with case law.
31. In a public park in Sweet Home, Oregon, a group of college students staged a peaceful
demonstration against the Iraq War. The protest included the singing of peaceful songs, the
display of banners condemning the acts of the U.S. government, and finally the use of several
“barrels of oil” that were really large containers filled with colored water. A city ordinance stated
that large groups must have a permit to gather in the park in question, and that all gatherings
must cease by 11:30 p.m. The students chanted and marched all day on January 20, 2004, and
continued until 11:30 that night, when local police told them they had to vacate the area. Then,
around midnight, the leader of the group, Lee Segal, stood on a podium and shouted “U.S., we
condemn you for a war that is only meant to save your precious oil—we spit on your efforts!” At
that instant he pushed over five “barrels of oil” and shouted, “we do not need oil if it is going to
kill our brothers and sisters!” The police arrested Segal and several others for their actions. They
were charged with violating the terms of their permit because they had remained after 11:30,
even though they were warned to leave. They were also charged with destruction of public
property because the dye used to color the water in the symbolic barrels destroyed several trees,
the grass, a park bench, and two picnic tables. Segal claimed his First Amendment rights were
violated, and the ACLU took his case all the way to the Supreme Court.
If you were a justice on the Court, how would you rule in this case?