CJE Exam (120 Questions and Answers)
Latest Update
1. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1942) - Correct answer BOE
required teachers and students to salute flag. Refusal to salute was considered
insubordination, punishable by expulsion and charges of delinquency. In 6-to-3 decision,
Court overruled its decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis and held that
compelling public schoolchildren to salute the flag was unconstitutional. The Court found
that such a salute was a form of utterance and was a means of communicating ideas.
2. New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) - Correct answer This U.S. Supreme Court case
extended the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech to libel cases brought by
public officials. The Supreme Court sought to encourage public debate by changing the
rules involving libel that had previously been the province of state law and state courts,
and that a public official cannot receive damages unless statements were made in
"actual malice."
3. LB. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner responsible for supervising the city
police department, filed a libel suit against four African American clergymen and the New
York Times in Alabama state court, alleging an ad seeking contributions to the civil rights
movement libeled him. The judge instructed the jury that under Alabama law, if the
statements were found libelous, falsity and malice were presumed, and damages could
be awarded without direct proof of financial loss. The jury concluded that the statements
did concern Sullivan and awarded him $500,000 for injuries to his reputation and
profession. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Rule of Law applied by
Alabama violated the First Amendment.
4. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1968) - Correct answer Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader,
made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal
syndicalism law. The law made illegal advocating "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful
methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform," as well
as assembling "with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism." The Court's opinion held that the Ohio
law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to
evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or
producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action."
The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while
ignoring whether that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless
action. Failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of
the Constitution.
P a g e 1 | 15
, 5. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District - 1969 - Correct answer
The Supreme Court decision declared students' First Amendment rights did not stop at
the school door. They had the right to express their political views, in this particular case
with black arm bands as a protest of the Vietnam War, as long as the expression did not
disrupt class work or disrupt the rights of others.
6. Bethel School District v. Fraser- (1986) - Correct answer Matthew Fraser made a
nominating speech at an assembly, lewd and sexual in nature, and he was disciplined.
The Court ruled the school was within its right to prohibit vulgar language at school. The
court declared that vulgar speech is not politically protected speech.
7. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeiern 1988 - Correct answer this case established standard for
censorship of school newspapers. The Court ruled school officials could exercise prior
restraint if/when a student newspaper was produced as a "regular classroom activity"
rather than a "forum for public expression." That standard means that most high school
papers now are assumed not to have First Amendment protections, while most college
newspapers are. The case began when the principal pulled two articles from the school
newspaper, one on divorce and one on teen pregnancy.
8. Texas v. Johnson (1989) - Correct answer In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall,
Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag to protest Reagan administration
policies. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration.
After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, the case went to the
Supreme Court. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that Johnson's burning of a flag was
protected expression under the First Amendment. The Court found that Johnson's
actions fell into the category of expressive conduct and had a distinctively political
nature.
9. Yeo. v. Town of Lexington (1998) - Correct answer The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit unanimously ruled that student journalists have the right to refuse ads
submitted to their publications. This case demonstrates the importance of a school
publication with public forum status. The case arose when student yearbook/newspaper
editors at Lexington High School in Massachusetts refused to print an ad submitted by
Douglas Yeo in 1992 encouraging sexual abstinence by students. The student
publications had an unwritten policy of not accepting political or advocacy ads, but did
offer Yeo to present his message in a letter to the editor. Yeo turned that down. Students
and school officials maintained the school's policy and practice had been to allow
students to control the content of their publications.
10. Dean v. Utica (2004) - Correct answer This case reflects limits to the Hazelwood
decision. Students were about to publish a story in their student newspaper, the Arrow,
about a lawsuit filed against their school district concerning the ill effects of diesel fumes
from the bus garage. As the paper was to go to press, school officials told the adviser it
could not be published. Editor Katy Dean contested the censorship. The court concluded
P a g e 2 | 15
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Pronurse. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $17.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
