Ch. 3 homework questions

Government actions that discourage the exercise of a constitutional right-especially free speech-are said to cause what?
chilling effect
What are the two components of the “Fighting Words” doctrine established by the Supreme Court in the 1942 case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire?
1. Words that are directed at an individual
2. Words that automatically inflict emotional harm or trigger violence
In the 1949 case Terminello v. Chicago, the Supreme Court modified its definition of fighting words-i.e.-words that are unprotected by the First Amendment.
A. What did the court in Terminello say about speech?
B. The court said the First Amendment protects such speech unless it is likely to produce what?
C. Subsequent Supreme Court rulings have confirmed that the Constitution permits government to prohibit only what type of speech?
A. The court said speech “may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with condition s as they are, or even stirs people to anger.”
B. “a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance or unrest.”
C. Only those face-to-face comments that are likely to trigger a group reaction of violence and disorder (including hate speech).
How many states have cyberbullying or harassment laws?
48 states
which states do not have cyberbullying or harassment laws?
Wisconsin & Alaska
how many have criminal sanctions for cyberbullying and harassment?
44 states
how many states impose a school sanction for bullying?
45 states
how many states include off-campus bullying in their sanctions?
16 states
T/F: few cases dealing directly with hate speech have reached the supreme court, but lower courts have consistently found anti-bias and anti-have-speech laws unconstitutional?
T/F: in the past 60 years the supreme court has avoided applying the fighting words definition to judge whether speech is protected by the constitution or not
T/F: in the 2003 case Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment allows states to punish people who set crosses ablaze with the intent to intimidate.
For speech to become a “true threat,” a speaker’s actions mush meet what three criteria?
1. a direct threat toward one or more individuals
2. with the intent of causing the listeners
3. to fear bodily harm or death
In the 2016 case Elonis v. United States, did the Supreme Court answer the question of when internet posts constitute true threats punishable by law?
what action did the court take in Elonis vs. United States?
the finding of the circuit court was reverse his punishment and the issue was resolved.
what conclusion did the supreme court reach in Elonis vs. United States?
the court reversed Elonis’ conviction in an 8-1 decision.
the third circuit court said there are two elements that must be proven to punish online speech as a threat. What are the two elements?
1. The threat must involve the intent of the speaker who must knowingly communicate their desire to cause harm
2. A reasonable person would view the communication as a threat
T/F: Other federal appellate courts have use one, but not both, of these elements. Legal observers want the Supreme Court to clarify whether both of these elements must be proven, or just one.
what rule was established for student expression by the Tinker case?
school officials cannot sensor student speech unless school officials reasonably forecast that the speech will cause disruption of school activities or collide with people’s rights.
Since the Tinker Case, the Supreme Court has ruled on additional school speech cases-Morse, Fraser, Hazelwood. Have these decisions upheld the Tinker test or have they weakened it?
T/F: The Morse decision expanded school authority to off-campus school-related student speech
T/F: The supreme court has not reviewed any of these cases. As a result, the standard for determining free speech rights of students in public schools is unclear.
The Supreme Court has given much more latitude to student speech on university campuses, restricting administration and faculty rights to interfere with student expression.
What did the Supreme Court say in its ruling in the case of Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri?
The supreme court reaffirmed that public universities cannot punish students for indecent or offensive speech that doesn’t disrupt campus order or interfere with the rights of their peers.
Universities across the U.S. began adopting campus speech codes in the 1980s and that practice has accelerated recently with more incidents of hate speech and resulting violence.
a. According to one study, 60% percent of 400 universities have policies that do what?
b. Courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently found these codes to be: constitutional or unconstitutional
a. Infringe on the free speech rights of their students.
b. unconstitutional

Get instant access to
all materials

Become a Member