Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
AP GO PO Unit 3
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Civil Liberties | freedoms granted by the constitution to protect us from the government |
| Civil Rights | protections from discrimination as a member of a particular group |
| How can individuals and groups help protect civil liberties and rights? | legal challenges, social movements, acts of congress |
| Establishment Clause | government can't establish a national religion |
| Free Exercise Clause | government can't prevent someone from practicing their religion |
| Is the bible allowed in public school instruction? Explain. | You may teach it in a secular manner |
| What is a writ of habeas corpus? | A court order requiring authorities to prove that a prisoner was lawfully detained. |
| When can habeas corpus be suspended? | Only in cases of rebellion or invasion when public safety requires it. |
| What are ex post facto laws? | Laws that punish someone for an action that was legal when it was committed. |
| What does the Constitution say about ex post facto laws? | They are forbidden. |
| What is a bill of attainder? | A law that declares a person or group guilty of a crime and punishes them without a trial. |
| What does the Constitution say about bills of attainder? | They are forbidden. |
| Which amendments protect the rights of criminal defendants? | The 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments. |
| Writ of Habeas Corpus | A legal order requiring the government to justify a person’s imprisonment. |
| Ex Post Facto Laws | Laws that retroactively make an action illegal. |
| Bill of Attainder | A law that punishes a person or group without a judicial trial. |
| What is symbolic speech? | Actions that express an idea or message without using words. |
| What are examples of symbolic speech? | Burning a flag, wearing armbands, draft-card burning. |
| What did Texas v. Johnson (1989) decide? | Burning the American flag is protected symbolic speech under the First Amendment. |
| What did U.S. v. O’Brien (1968) rule? | Burning draft cards can be restricted because the law regulated conduct, not speech itself. |
| What is “speech plus”? | Speech combined with action (speech + conduct). |
| What are examples of speech plus? | Protests, demonstrations, picketing, marches. |
| Can speech plus be regulated by the government? | Yes, through reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. |
| What are time, place, and manner restrictions? | Government rules that regulate when, where, or how speech occurs without targeting content. |
| What is prior restraint? | Government action that prevents speech before it occurs. |
| Is prior restraint usually constitutional? | No, it is almost always unconstitutional. |
| What did Near v. Minnesota (1931) establish? | Prior restraint is unconstitutional, even for controversial or critical speech. |
| What is the clear and present danger test? | Speech may be restricted if it creates a serious, immediate threat to public safety. |
| What did Schenck v. U.S. (1919) rule? | Speech that creates a clear and present danger can be limited. |
| What is incitement? | Speech intended to provoke immediate illegal action. |
| What did Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) establish? | Speech can only be restricted if it is intended and likely to cause imminent lawless action. |
| Is obscenity protected by the First Amendment? | No, obscene speech is not protected. |
| What is the Miller Test used for? | To determine whether material is legally obscene. |
| What is libel? | Written false statements that damage a person’s reputation. |
| What is slander? | Spoken false statements that damage a person’s reputation. |
| Are libel and slander protected by the First Amendment? | No, false statements that harm reputation are not protected. |
| What is commercial speech? | Speech that advertises products or services. |
| Is commercial speech protected? | Yes, but it can be regulated more than political speech. |
| Does the First Amendment apply to students in school? | Yes, but schools may limit speech that disrupts learning. |
| What did Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) decide? | Students do not lose First Amendment rights at school unless speech causes substantial disruption. |
| Schenck v. United States (1919) – historical context | Occurred during World War I, when the U.S. prosecuted thousands of dissenters |
| Who was Charles Schenck | A Socialist arrested in Philadelphia for handing out anti-draft leaflets |
| What law did Schenck violate | The Espionage Act of 1917 |
| What did Schenck do after his conviction | Appealed his case to the Supreme Court |
| Supreme Court decision in Schenck v. United States | Unanimous 9–0 decision upholding Schenck’s conviction as constitutional |
| Reason Schenck’s speech was not protected | It posed a clear and present danger to the United States |
| Example used by the Court to explain limits of free speech | Falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater and causing panic |
| Key precedent set by Schenck | Limits of speech depend on the circumstances in which it is expressed |
| How Schenck would be treated in peacetime | His ideas likely would have been protected by the First Amendment |
| Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) – historical context | Mid-1960s anti–Vietnam War protests across the United States |
| Who was John Tinker | A student who wore a black armband to school to protest the Vietnam War |
| School’s response to Tinker’s protest | He was suspended after refusing to remove the armband |
| Who helped bring the Tinker case to court | The ACLU |
| Central issue in Tinker v. Des Moines | Whether students have the same constitutional rights in school as outside school |
| Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. Des Moines | 7–2 decision in favor of the students |
| Outcome ordered by the Court in Tinker | School district had to expunge suspensions and pay court costs |
| Tinker ruling on student speech | Students in public schools are protected by the First Amendment |
| Limit on student free speech under Tinker | Speech must not violate specific constitutional regulations |
| Burden of proof in student speech cases | Falls on the school officials |
| What schools must show to limit student speech | Compelling evidence that a rule is necessary |
| Dissenting opinion in Tinker | Schools are not appropriate venues for anti-war protests |
| Key similarity between Schenck and Tinker | Both involve protest and First Amendment rights during wartime |
| Court consensus comparison between cases | Both decisions were made by strong majorities |
| Constitutional amendment involved in both cases | The First Amendment |
| How Schenck has been limited over time | Later cases narrowed the clear and present danger standard |
| Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) refinement | Speech must involve a specific and direct threat, not just advocacy |
| Modern significance of Tinker | Protects student expression that does not disrupt school or violate others’ rights |
| Standard from Tinker for protected student speech | Speech must not disrupt educational purposes or infringe on others’ rights |
Created by:
user-1878450