Comm Law Exam 1

Front 1

What is the clear and present danger test?

Back 1

Clear and imminent harm to National Security.

Front 2

What was created in Brandenburg v. Ohio?

Back 2

Incitement Test

Front 3

What are the three parts of the Incitement Test?

Back 3

1. Directed to and 2. likely to 3. incite or produce imminent lawless action.

Front 4

How can media be held liable for inciting harm?

Back 4

When they encourage violence, not just display it.

Front 5

What three things prove negligence?

Back 5

1. Duty of Care 2. Breached duty of care 3. Breach caused harm

Front 6

What is proximate cause?

Back 6

Determining whether it is reasonable to conclude the defendant's actions led to the plaintiff's injury.

Front 7

Cohen v. California

Back 7

"FCK the draft" jacket was constitutional because the content of the speech was just as important as the meaning. This decided that both what you say and how you say it is protected.

Front 8

How have states responded to cyberbullying?

Back 8

22 states punishes cyberbullying and 7 make it a criminal act.

Front 9

R.A.V. vs. St. Paul

Back 9

St. Paul's ordinance against burning crosses was a breach of symbolic speech.

Front 10

Virginia v. Black

Back 10

Can't burn crosses on someone's yard if it is to intimidate them/contained a "true threat".

Front 11

Elonis v. United State

Back 11

Elonis was allowed to post violent "rap lyrics" because there was no proof of intent to violate the law.

Front 12

Texas vs. Johnson

Back 12

Burning flags is a protected symbolic speech.

Front 13

United States vs. O'Brien

Back 13

Can't burn a draft card because it is an interference of military operations.

Front 14

What three-part formula from the Tinkercase does the Court use to determine when schools may regulate studentexpression?

Back 14

Disruptive,school-sponsored, and low-value speech

Front 15

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

Back 15

Schools can use prior review because they do not have to financially support something they do not agree with. The court ruled the school paper was not a public forum, it was school-sponsored and it could also be seen by younger siblings, so the content was not appropriate.

Front 16

Hosty v. Carter

Back 16

Hazelwood extends to university administrators becauseuniversities are not required to financially support the publication of views they do not support.

Front 17

Morse v. Frederick

Back 17

Schools could ban messages that went against established school policy.

Front 18

Schenck v. United States

Back 18

Against the draft. Speech is restricted when it is a serious and imminent harm to national security.

Front 19

Gitlow v. New York

Back 19

Communist flyers were seen as clear and present danger. However, Holmes said every idea of incitement should stand and this later established incorporation.

Front 20

Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire

Back 20

Fighting words are unprotected because they cause immediate harm or illegal acts.

Front 21

Milton

Back 21

Truth always wins in a battle of false. Open marketplace advances society and humankind.

Front 22

Locke

Back 22

All people have fundamental rights that include freedom of expression. Government power is granted through the people.

Front 23

Rousseau

Back 23

All people are born free and equal but enter into a social contract.

Front 24

Marketplace of Ideas/Obtainment of Truth

Back 24

Mill - truth wins over false

Front 25

Self-Governance

Back 25

Meiklejohn - informed voters

Front 26

Checking Value

Back 26

Blasi - watchdog over the government

Front 27

Safety Valve/Change with Stability

Back 27

Emerson - reduces violent actions through verbal expression

Front 28

Self-Fulfillment

Back 28

Baker - individual right to full potential

Front 29

Near v. Minnesota

Back 29

Modern understanding of prior review. First time striking down a state law against the First Amendment.

Front 30

New York Times Co. v. United States

Back 30

Nixon admin. ordered an injunction against the publishing of the Pentagon Papers. The SC said it was not a threat to real and immediate risk of National Security.

Front 31

AP v. United Press

Back 31

Hot News Doctrine

Front 32

Reed v. Town of Gilbert

Back 32

Church Signs; cannot regulate based on topic, not just viewpoint

Front 33

Citizens United vs. FEC

Back 33

Protected symbolic speech; eliminated limits on corporate giving to political campaigns

Front 34

Garrcetti v. Ceballos

Back 34

Private employers can limit and punish employee work-related expression.

Front 35

Lane v. Franks

Back 35

Employers can regulate speech about work duties, but not other speech.