GVPT439A

Fall04

McIntosh

FINAL EXAM REVIEW QUESTIONS

 

For the final exam, you will be asked to answer two of the following questions. Be sure that you respond to them in coherent and unambiguous terms and that you thoroughly discuss appropriate case precedent. Good luck!

 

1. In your opinion, what is the core purpose of the First Amendment? Having articulated a purpose, what judicial opinions support your understanding? Explain.

2. “Since Justice Holmes wrote the opinion for the Court in Schenck v. United States (1917), the Supreme Court’s approach to the First Amendment and political speech has consistently moved in the direction of providing more and more protection for individuals and groups to express their disapproval of public officials and policies.”

 

Citing specific opinions we have studied, write an essay agreeing or disagreeing with this statement.

 

3. Bob and Sue Jones have been married for twelve years.  Bob is an accountant in a three-person firm, and Sue has an executive position in a small construction company.  They have two children--six and nine years old.  One of their favorite traditions is that each year they have most of the people they know over for a New Year’s Eve bash.  Bob usually picks up a few large pizzas and a case of beer for the event.  One Sunday, while Bob, Sue and their children are tending the vegetable garden in the backyard, a meteorite the size of a large watermelon crashes through the roof, destroying much of their home.  Just moments earlier, the entire family had been playing Monopoly at precisely the spot where the meteorite landed.

 

The event becomes an enormous news story. The family is featured in numerous national magazines.  One very unfortunate result of the bizarre incident is that Bob is apparently so traumatized by the near-miss that he has been hospitalized, unable to work or even interact normally with other people.  Another effect of the incident is that it has sparked a nationwide policy debate over whether the federal government should invest billions of dollars in a program to prevent large meteorites from hitting residential areas.  The impact of the meteorite on Bob and his family now has taken on tremendous political significance because it stands as a symbol of the damage that undetected meteorites can cause to innocent people.

 

A reporter from a major newspaper, however, challenges the conventional wisdom.  She runs a story claiming that Bob is actually faking it, and as part of her story, she alleges that Bob has been a liar and a slacker his whole life.

 

Sue sues the newspaper in federal court for the harm that the story causes to the entire family.  The jury awards Sue’s family $5 million because the reporter was somewhat careless in investigating the story.  The reporter challenges the jury award on constitutional grounds.  If you were a U.S. Supreme Court justice hearing the case, how would you rule?  Draft an opinion that expresses your views on it.

 

4. Southwest State College is a public university with about 10,000 undergraduates.  Last year, the university administration, without warning, announced that it was dramatically increasing the requirements for graduation.  The new set of requirements were made effective immediately, and were binding on all students who had not yet graduated.  Many Southwest State students, and especially juniors and seniors, were outraged.

 

In an expression of his anger, Ron D., a creative writing major who was a junior at the time, wrote and self-published a book describing a violent student rebellion.  Although the book took the form of a novel, using no real names of people or places, its description of a state university suddenly altering graduation requirements closely tracked the actual events at Southwest State.  In the novel, the president of the student government (“Don R.”)  plots a violent takeover of the university.  Exactly three weeks before graduation, this fictional president has a large portion of the student body wear orange arm bands around campus as a symbol of their opposition to the changes in the requirements.  One week later, when the administration fails to respond to the student protest, Don R. has the students wear green arm bands to signal that they will take further action if necessary.  One week later, the students wear black arm bands, and on graduation day, hundreds of students stage a paramilitary attack on the campus, occupying all of the major buildings and destroying the main administrative buildings.

 

Meanwhile, back at Southwest State, Ron D.’s book has become a best-seller and a cause celebre.  Although there is no evidence of a coordinated effort by Ron D. or anyone else, three weeks before graduation, hundreds of students wear orange arm bands around the campus.  When asked about it by campus officials, a number of students respond to the effect that: “We’re opposed to the changes in the requirements--didn’t you read the book?”  One week later, even more students wear green arm bands.  It is widely known that Ron D. and many other students are still extremely angry towards the university administration, and that Ron D. has been arrested in the past, though never convicted, for starting large brawls in nightclubs.

 

Extremely nervous about the way events are unfolding, the university administration bans the wearing of all armbands for the two weeks preceding graduation.

 

If the university administration’s action is ultimately challenged on First Amendment grounds, can it withstand scrutiny?  Using arguments based on the principles and cases we have discussed this semester, explain why or why not.

 

5. In the 16 years that elapsed between the Court's decision in Roth v. U.S. and its decision in Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton, Justice Brennan had a substantial change of jurisprudential heart. Review the rulings in each of the cases we considered from Roth to Slaton. Then, assess Brennan's Slaton dissent. Do you agree or disagree with his concerns? Why or why not?

6. You are a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presented with a case involving a computer game marketed for adults only in which the object of the game is to stalk and rape a victim of your choice. The player is given more points depending upon the victim's age (younger the victim, the more points one receives) and upon the cleverness of the approach (use of a gun is awarded the fewest points). All images are computer-generated, so that no live people are depicted in the course of the game. Larry Flynt has been charged with violation of anti-pornography statutes for producing and marketing the product. The prosecution argues that the game has no redeeming value whatever and only encourages violence against women and children. In addition, the government’s position is that the material in question fails all three prongs of the Miller test, regardless of where prosecution might take place.

Flynt counters that no-one is hurt by his game, and in fact it discourages violence, that it represents a true art form, the game requires critical thinking and strategizing in order to play successfully (so it is really educational), and that the value of the ideas imbedded in this form of expression is self-evident (for example, the scenery and back-ground music are beautiful and captivating, and people simply enjoy playing the game). Finally, he argues that, because all characters are computer-generated images and some of the sequences are, to his thinking, comical, the game is really a parody of live-action pornography.

How would you approach this conflict and resolve the issues?

7.  In the town of Springfield (in one of the fifty states), some years ago a group of people started a practice they call "Spiri-Stretch."  Every Saturday morning they form a circle in a local park, and engage in calisthenics while chanting.  Over the years, the group has become increasingly passionate about this practice, to the point that many of them claim that it is the most important thing in their lives, and that they would rather die than give it up.  One Saturday, a local resident, Pat, shows up where the group meets with a large sign that says in big bold letters: "SPIRI-STRETCH IS BULLSHIT!"  Pat proceeds to  march around with the sign just a few feet away from the circle, but he makes no noise and does not physically interfere in any way.

 

A police officer arrests Pat under a state law making it illegal to "intentionally engage in offensive conduct."  Pat is convicted and sentenced to six months in prison.

 

Present the strongest argument you can that Pat's constitutional rights have been violated.  Then present the strongest argument you can that Pat's constitutional rights have not been violated.