Major Principles of Media Law 2015 1st Edition By Genelle Belmas – Test Bank
To Purchase this Complete Test Bank with Answers Click the link Below
If face any problem or
Further information contact us At tbzuiqe@gmail.com
Sample Test
QUESTION POOL FOR EXAM #1 ‑ COMMUNICATIONS LAW
(covering Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 in
Major Principles of Media Law,
2015 edition)
CHAPTER 1. THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM
1. A
U.S. Supreme Court decision interpreting
the meaning of an act of Congress (for example, the Copyright
Act) may be overruled by: a) a ruling by a federal regulatory agency; b) a
subsequent act of Congress; c) a treaty with a foreign nation; d) a
presidential executive order; e) all of these.
2. How
could a U.S. Supreme Court decision interpreting
the meaning of the Constitution be overturned? a) by a
Constitutional amendment; b) by an act of Congress; c) by a later Supreme Court
decision; d) by a presidential proclamation; e) both choices A and C.
3. The
common law is derived from: a) acts of Congress; b) acts of state legislatures;
c) court decisions; d) rulings by federal agencies; e) rulings by arbitrators.
4. Here’s
a legal citation: 419 U.S. 245 (1974). What does “U.S.” tell you about the
case? a) absolutely nothing; b) that it is a U.S. Supreme Court decision; c)
that it is a U.S. District Court case; d) that it is a criminal case, not a
civil case; e) that the U.S. government lost the case in 1974.
5. The
rules and regulations adopted by the Federal Trade Commission are examples of:
a) statutory law; b) common law; c) constitutional law; d) administrative law;
e) none of these.
6. In
legal terminology, a code is:
a) an indexed collection of court decisions; b) an organized body of statutory
law; c) a list of constitutional amendments; d) a collection of executive
orders; e) a secret message from one judge to others.
7. Products
liability, medical malpractice, battery, invasion of privacy, trespass,
wrongful death and libel all fall within a field of civil law known as: a)
torts; b) contracts; c) stare decisis; d) negligence; e) certiorari.
8. The
U.S. Supreme Court in 2003 declared that very large punitive damage awards
(i.e. those exceeding 10 times the provable monetary losses) are usually
improper. The case: a) Plessy
v. Ferguson; b) New
York Times v. Sullivan; c) State
Farm v. Campbell; d) Virginia
v. Black; e) Young
v. New Haven Advocate.
9. In a
court of equity, an aggrieved party may secure: a) only monetary compensation
for his/her injuries; b) monetary compensation for injuries plus additional
money for “pain and suffering;” c) non-monetary remedies such as injunctions,
restraining orders, and orders of specific performance; d) none of these.
10.
Decisions of a U.S. District Court are normally appealed to the:
a) Court of Claims; b) District Court of Appeal; c) Court of Regulatory
Appeals; d) U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; e) U.S. Supreme Court.
11.
Which of these courts hears appeals of decisions by federal
regulatory agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission? a) Court of
Claims; b) District Court; c) Court of Regulatory Appeals; d) Circuit Court of
Appeals; e) Supreme Court.
12.
Some lawsuits are tried in federal rather than state courts for
two main reasons. Some cases involve federal
questions (legal issues governed by federal law). Others go to
federal court primarily because of: a) a criminal defendant’s claim that no
state court would provide a fair trial; b) the cost or complexity of a
particular lawsuit; c) diversity of citizenship; d) a civil litigant’s claim
that no state court could be fair; e) none of these.
13.
Legal precedents are
normally established by decisions of all of these except: a) a state’s highest
court; b) the U.S. Supreme Court; c) U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals; d) jury
verdicts in trial courts; e) a state’s intermediate appellate courts.
14.
Lexis-Nexis is: a) a brand of car; b) a law library in
Washington, D.C.; c) an index of legal terms; d) a computer data base
containing legal materials and news articles; e) all of these.
15.
The term stare
decisis refers to: a) miscellaneous civil wrongs; b) decisions
of the infamous English court of the star chamber; c) extraordinary relief
granted by a court of equity; d) rulings of early common law courts that were
later reversed; e) the principle that courts normally follow judicial precedents.
16.
During most lawsuits, each side is allowed to ask questions of
the opposing side before trial. This process is called: a) discovery; b)
inquiry; c) inquisition; d) rejoinder; e) remittitur.
17.
When an appellate court remands a
case, that means: a) the verdict is affirmed; b) the verdict is reversed and
the case is terminated; c) the verdict is affirmed in part and reversed in
part; d) a lower court is directed to reconsider the case in light of the
appellate court’s opinion; e) the verdict is set aside and the case is
automatically sent to the next-higher court for a further appeal.
18.
When an appellate court distinguishes a
previous decision, that means: a) the court ranks it as very important and
agrees with it; b) the court follows it as a precedent; c) the court declines
to follow it as a precedent, citing differences between its facts and those of
the current case; d) none of these.
19.
In the 2009 case of Caperton
v. Massey Coal, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of: a)
damages; b) judicial recusal; c) actual malice; d) jury verdicts; e) discovery.
20.
The Supreme Court will hear cases where one state sues another
as part of its: a) original jurisdiction; b) appellate jurisdiction; c) rule of
four; d) stare
decisis; e) voir
dire.
21.
The largest circuit in the country is the _______. a) First; b)
Third; c) Eighth; d) Ninth; e) Federal.
22.
How is the federal appeals system structured? a) Each state
decides for itself how to handle federal appeals; b) Each state has one federal
appeals court; c) Each Supreme Court justice is responsible for one state; d)
There is one federal appeals court in the whole U.S.; e) The country is divided
into circuits.
SCORING KEY, CH. 1
1. B
2. E
3. C
4. B
5. D
6. B
7. A
8. C
9. C
10.
D
11.
D
12.
C
13.
D
14.
D
15.
E
16.
A
17.
D
18.
C
19.
B
20.
A
21.
D
22.
E
CHAPTER 2. THE LEGACY OF FREEDOM
1. Areopagitica was
a famous early defense of freedom of expression. Its author was: a) Ben
Franklin; b) J.J. Rousseau, c) John Milton; d) Thomas Jefferson; e) John Locke.
2. Prior
to the John Peter Zenger trial, juries in criminal (or seditious) libel cases
were allowed to decide: a) whether the allegedly defamatory statement was true;
b) whether the person accused of libel actually printed the alleged defamation;
c) both of these; d) neither of these.
3. Only
a few years after the First Amendment was ratified, Congress passed a law that
limited freedom of expression: a) the Fox Libel Act; b) the Smith Act; c) the
Sedition Act of 1798; d) the Stamp Act; e) Lord Campbell’s Act.
4. The
Sedition Act of 1798: a) recognized truth as a defense against libel charges;
b) was seen by many anti-federalists, notably Jefferson and Madison, as a
threat to free expression; c) inspired resentment against the Federalist Party,
although no more than 25 people were charged with violating it; d) all of these
(choices A, B and C); e) none of these.
5. The
Alien and Sedition Acts were notable because: a) they seemingly violated the
First Amendment only a few years after it was ratified; b) they contributed to
the popular mood that helped elect Thomas Jefferson to the presidency; c) they
were never used to prosecute Federalists; d) the Supreme Court did not rule on
their constitutionality while they were in effect; e) all of these.
6. The
First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and free press were made binding on
the states in the case of: a) Gitlow
v. New York; b) Abrams
v. U.S.; c) Near
v. Minnesota; d) Whitney
v. California; e) New
York Times v. Sullivan.
7. The
First Amendment says, “Congress shall
make no law…”, and it never mentions state or local governments. Why does the
First Amendment apply to the states today? a) because the Supreme Court simply
rewrote it without any specific legal basis for doing so; b) because of the
“due process” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; c) because of the Fifth Amendment
“due process” clause; d) because of the Fourth Amendment’s safeguards against
unreasonable searches and seizures; e) because of the actual malice rule.
8. Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes first set
forth his famous clear
and present danger test for determining whether controversial
speech is protected by the First Amendment in the case of: a) Fiske v. Kansas;
b) Schenck v. U.S.;
c) Brandenburg v.
Ohio; d) Whitney
v. California; e) Gitlow
v. New York.
9. Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes used the clear
and present danger test to uphold the conviction of a man who
actively opposed World War I, but he later rethought the meaning of the clear and present danger test
and joined Justice Louis Brandeis in a famous concurring opinion that advocated
broader First Amendment safeguards for unpopular speech in: a) Fiske v. Kansas;
b) Gitlow v. New York;
c) Brandenburg v.
Ohio; d) Whitney
v. California; e) Yates
v. U.S.
10.
The Alien Registration Act of 1940 (the Smith Act) was made
virtually useless as a tool for prosecuting communists by a Supreme Court
decision that protected those who say they favor communism as an abstract idea
unless it can be proven that they are advocating violent action to carry out
their beliefs. The decision was: a) Near
v. Minnesota; b) Whitney
v. California; c) Yates
v. U.S.; d) Dennis
v. U.S.; e) Fiske
v. Kansas.
11.
A Ku Klux Klan member’s prosecution under a criminal syndicalism
law was invalidated by a Supreme Court decision holding that even those who
express violent racist views are protected by the First Amendment unless they
create an imminent danger of violent action. The case: a) Yates v. U.S.; b) Gitlow v. New York;
c) Whitney v.
California; d) Brandenburg
v. Ohio; e) Schenck
v. U.S.
12.
In Whitney
v. California, Justice Louis Brandeis emphasized the importance of:
a) more speech rather than enforced silence; b) the clear and present danger
test; c) content-based regulations; d) content-neutral regulations; e) time,
place and manner regulations.
13.
What website generated public and legal concern when its owners
released thousands of classified government documents? a) Amazon.com; b)
WikiLeaks; c) Google; d) MSN; e) Yahoo.
14.
In Klapper
v. Amnesty Int’l USA (2013), the Supreme Court said that
journalists and other organizations had no standing to challenge amendments to
what act? a) Espionage Act; b) Sedition Act; c) Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act; d) Child Online Privacy Protection Act; e) None of these.
15.
In 2013, journalists uncovered a huge government surveillance
program called PRISM. Which government agency was responsible for overseeing
this program? a) Federal Communications Commission; b) National Security
Administration; c) Department of Defense; d) Department of Homeland Security;
e) Federal Trade Commission.
16.
If I publish an article critical of the federal government, I am
engaging in: a) content-neutral regulation; b) incorporation; c) content-based
regulation; d) sedition; e) invasion of privacy.
SCORING KEY, CH. 2
1. C
2. B
3. C
4. D
5. E
6. A
7. B
8. B
9. D
10.
C
11.
D
12.
A
13.
B
14.
C
15.
B
16.
D
CHAPTER 3. MODERN PRIOR RESTRAINTS
1. The
Supreme Court first clearly held that prior censorship of the news media by
government is usually unconstitutional in: a) Dennis v. U.S.; b) New York Times v. U.S.;
c) Near v. Minnesota;
d) Whitney v. California;
e) Abrams v. U.S.
2. In
the “Pentagon Papers” case (New
York Times v. U.S.), the Supreme Court overruled an attempt by the
federal government to censor the nation’s leading newspapers. The court so
ruled primarily because: a) all nine justices felt the First Amendment should
never allow prior restraint of major newspapers; b) seven justices felt prior
restraint should never be allowed; c) the government did not adequately prove
that national security was in jeopardy in this particular case; d) the
government dropped its attempt to censor the press before the Supreme Court
could decide the case; e) the case arose in the summer and the nine justices
didn’t want to interrupt their vacations.
3. In
the “Pentagon Papers” case the position that freedom of the press should be
absolute was supported by: a) all nine justices; b) only the Nixon appointees
on the court; c) all six justices who voted in the majority; d) only Justices
Black and Douglas, e) none of the nine justices.
4. The
Supreme Court has made it clear that the print media cannot be licensed or
arbitrarily denied distribution rights. Some of the leading cases that
established this principle involved local government attempts to restrict the
religious activities of the Jehovah’s Witness movement. Which of these cases
involved Jehovah’s Witnesses? a) Lovell
v. City of Griffin; b) Jones
v. City of Opelika; c) Valentine
v. Chrestensen; d) Grosjean
v. American Press; e) both A and B.
5. The
Supreme Court upheld a city’s content‑neutral permit system for groups wishing
to hold large events at a city park in the 2002 case of: a) Thomas v. Chicago Parks District;
b) Frisby v. Schultz;
c) Watchtower Bible
and Tract Society v. Village of Stratton; d) Valentine v. Chrestensen;
e) Lovell v. City of
Griffin.
6. The
Supreme Court held that a city cannot require a permit for door-to-door
soliciting for political, religious or other non-commercial causes in the 2002
case of: a) Thomas v.
Chicago Parks District; b) Frisby
v. Schultz; c) Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society v. Village of Stratton; d) Valentine v. Chrestensen;
e) Lovell v. City of
Griffin.
7. In
the case of Texas v.
Johnson, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects:
a) the Ku Klux Klan; b) the Communist Party; c) anti-abortion protesters; d)
those who desecrate the American flag as a political protest; e) civil rights
demonstrators.
8. In
the case of U.S. v.
Eichman, the Supreme Court overturned an act of Congress banning:
a) the Ku Klux Klan; b) the Communist Party; c) anti-abortion protests; d)
desecration of the American flag as a political protest; e) civil rights
demonstrations.
9. The
U.S. Supreme Court allowed a state to create free expression rights at private
shopping centers under the state Constitution when no such rights exist under
the U.S. Constitution. That occurred in: a) Frisby v. Schultz; b) Board of Airport Commissioners v.
Jews for Jesus; c) Hudgens
v. National Labor Relations Board; d) Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins;
e) Fashion Valley
Mall v. NLRB.
10.
In 2007, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed that there is a
right to picket a store in a private shopping mall under the California state
Constitution even though very few other states have chosen to follow its
earlier decision recognizing this right. The case: a) Frisby v. Schultz;
b) Board of Airport
Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus; c) Hudgens v. National Labor Relations
Board; d) Pruneyard
Shopping Center v. Robins; e) Fashion Valley Mall v. NLRB.
11.
The Supreme Court ruled that “hate speech” (e.g., burning a
cross as a symbolic act) is protected by the First Amendment in the case of:
a) Heffron v.
International Society for Krishna Consciousness; b) Ward v. Rock Against Racism;
c) Whitney v.
California; d) R.A.V.
v. St. Paul; e) Wisconsin
v. Mitchell.
12.
In 2003 the Supreme Court clarified the decision cited in the
previous question by holding that cross-burning is not protected by the First
Amendment if it can be shown that it was intended to intimidate anyone. The
2003 case: a) R.A.V.
v. St. Paul; b) Virginia
v. Black; c) Wisconsin
v. Mitchell; d) Scheidler
v. National Organization for Women; e) Ward v. Rock Against Racism.
13.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court has also ruled that a violent act motivated
by racial hate may be punished more severely than the same act would be if it
was not motivated by hate. The case? a) Heffron
v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness; b) Ward v. Rock Against Racism;
c) Whitney v.
California; d) R.A.V.
v. St. Paul; e) Wisconsin
v. Mitchell.
14.
In Boy
Scouts of America v. Dale, the Supreme Court held that: a) the Boy
Scouts are a “public accommodation;” b) the Boy Scouts are equivalent to a
church; c) the Boy Scouts may forbid homosexuals to serve as scoutmasters; d)
the Boy Scouts may exclude those who do not profess a belief in God; e) the Boy
Scouts must accept even atheists.
15.
In U.S.
v. National Treasury Employees Union, the Supreme Court: a)
overturned a ban on federal employees being paid for speaking or writing
articles even on topics unrelated to their work; b) upheld the ban described in
choice A; c) rejected a pay raise for federal workers; d) upheld a pay raise
for federal workers; e) ordered the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to safeguard
taxpayers’ rights.
16.
In 2006, the Supreme Court said the First Amendment does not
protect public employees who act as whistle blowers by filing complaints with
their superiors. The case: a) U.S.
v. National Treasury Employees Union; b) Friends of Park La Brea v. Williams;
c) Garcetti v.
Ceballos; d) Frisby
v. Schultz; e) Virginia
v. Black.
17.
The California Supreme Court held that the state constitution
does not guarantee a right to distribute literature inside a gated apartment
complex in the case of: a) Pruneyard
Shopping Center v. Robins; b) Young v. Raley’s; c) Golden Gateway Center v. Golden
Gateway Tenants Association; d) Friends of Park La Brea v. Williams;
e) Waremart v.
Progressive Campaigns.
18.
In a 1994 decision, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court order
forbidding anti-abortion demonstrations within 36 feet of the entrance to a
clinic that performed abortions while ruling that a ban on approaching patients
anywhere within 300 feet of a clinic was unconstitutional. The case: a) Planned Parenthood v. Casey;
b) Madsen v. Women’s
Health Center; c) Roe
v. Wade; d) Feminist
Women’s Health Center v. Blythe; e) Operation Rescue of Tarrant County
v. Richards.
19.
In Schenck
v. Pro‑Choice Network, a 1997 decision, the Supreme Court held
that: a) abortion protesters can be forbidden to enter a 15-foot “floating
buffer zone” around clinic patrons; b) a 15-foot “floating buffer zone” around
clinic patrons is unconstitutional–protesters have a right to approach
patients; c) abortion protesters can be ordered to stay 500 feet away from
clinics; d) abortion protesters can be barred from demonstrating anywhere in
the same town as a clinic that does abortions; e) this decision did not concern
abortion protests.
20.
The Supreme Court upheld a law forbidding anti-abortion
demonstrators to enter an eight-foot floating buffer zone around persons
approaching a medical facility in the case of: a) Madsen v. Women’s Health Center;
b) Hill v. Colorado;
c) Schenck v.
Pro-Choice Network; d) Frisby
v. Schultz; e) Lovell
v. City of Griffin.
21.
The Supreme Court held that the federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act cannot ordinarily be used against
anti-abortion protesters even if they block access to a medical clinic in the
2003 case of: a) Scheidler
v. National Organization for Women; b) Feminist Women’s Health Center v.
Blythe; c) Madsen
v. Women’s Health Center; d) Frisby v. Schultz; e) Virginia v. Black.
22.
Suppose a city passed a law banning demonstrations that target a
specific private residence while allowing them on public sidewalks in general.
Based on the Frisby
v. Schultz case, such a law would be: a) okay—not an
unconstitutional restriction on freedom of expression; b) a violation of the
First Amendment; c) a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment “due process”
clause; d) both choices b and c; e) Frisby
v. Schultz had nothing to do with demonstrations in
residential areas.
23.
The Supreme Court allowed a city to control sound levels at rock
concerts even though the city’s action did not meet the “least intrusive means”
test. That happened in the case of: a) Ward
v. Rock Against Racism; b) City
of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer; c) Lovell v. City of Griffin; d) Jones v. City of Opelika;
e) R.A.V. v. St.
Paul.
24.
The Supreme Court once held that a state’s tax on large
newspapers but not small ones violated the First Amendment because it was
obviously intended to punish most of the large papers for opposing that state’s
governor. That happened in: a) Grosjean
v. American Press; b) Minneapolis
Star and Tribune Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue; c) Texas Monthly v. Bullock;
d) Leathers v.
Medlock; e) Arkansas
Writers’ Project v. Ragland.
25.
The Supreme Court held that a state tax on ink and newsprint was
unconstitutional because it applied to large newspapers but exempted small
ones, even though there was no evidence the tax was intended to punish any
newspaper for its content. That happened in: a) Grosjean v. American Press;
b) Minneapolis Star
and Tribune Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue; c) Texas Monthly v. Bullock;
d) Leathers v.
Medlock; e) Arkansas
Writers’ Project v. Ragland.
26.
The First Amendment does not excuse the mass media from paying
the normal business taxes that all businesses must pay. In which of these cases
was a tax on a medium of communications upheld? a) Texas Monthly v. Bullock;
b) Arkansas Writers’
Project v. Ragland; c) Leathers
v. Medlock; d) Minneapolis
Star and Tribune Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue; e) Grosjean v. American Press.
27.
A federal court ruled in 2003 that a city could not ban
soliciting and leafletting on a downtown pedestrian mall unless the city could
justify it under the strict-scrutiny standard. The case: a) S.O.C. v. The Mirage;
b) City of Las Vegas
v. ACLU; c) Harman
v. City of New York; d) Venetian
Casino Resort v. Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas; e) Costco Companies v. Gallant.
28.
What was at issue in the 2009 Supreme Court case of Pleasant Grove City v. Summum?
a) Damages for trespass; b) Abortion protests; c) Monuments in public parks; d)
Taxation on the media; e) Protests at sporting events.
29.
In what 2011 case did the Supreme Court barring a state from
enforcing a law restricting protests near funerals? a) City of Las Vegas v. ACLU;
b) Harman v. City of
New York; c) Virginia
v. Black; d) Snyder
v. Phelps; e) Pleasant
Grove City v. Summum.
30.
In which case did the Supreme Court invalidate a law attempting
to regulate speech about animal cruelty? a) Virginia v. Black; b) Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co. v.
Commissioner of Revenue; c) Pleasant
Grove City v. Summum; d) Near v. Minnesota; e) U.S. v. Stevens.
31.
In the “Hit Man” case (Rice
v. Paladin Press), the Fourth Circuit said that the publishers of
“Hit Man” could be sued for damages because the book: a) talked abstractly
about murder for hire; b) incited readers to commit murder; c) named particular
individuals to be killed; d) offered payment for the murder of someone; e) all
of the above.
32.
The Supreme Court said in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission that:
a) the government’s refusal to fund speech is not the same thing as censoring
it; b) laws on animal cruelty must be narrowly tailored; c) an anti-abortion
website was a true threat; d) anonymous speech gets as much protection as
speech whose speaker is known; e) flag-burning laws are unconstitutional.
33.
The Stolen Valor Act criminalizes lying about: a) military
awards and decorations; b) service in the armed forces; c) wartime crimes; d)
any of the above; e) none of the above.
34.
Two justices issued dissents from denial of cert in a case
dealing with individuals who had been denied access to a president’s speech
because of a bumper sticker on their car. The case: a) Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co. v.
Commissioner of Revenue; b) McIntyre
v. Ohio Elections Commission; c) Weise v. Casper;
d) Rice v. Paladin
Press; e) Frisby
v. Schultz.
35.
In U.S.
v. Alvarez, the Court overturned what law, saying that there is no
“general exception to the First Amendment for false statements”? a) The Alien
and Sedition Act; b) The Stolen Valor Act; c) A California hate speech law; d)
Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act; e) none of the above.
36.
In what case did a Colorado court say that a law forbidding
“gruesome” images on billboards was a narrowly tailored way to protect
children? a) Pleasant
Grove City v. Summum; b) McIntyre
v. Ohio Elections Commission; c) Rice v. Paladin Press;
d) Saint John’s
Church in the Wilderness v. Scott; e) U.S. v. Stevens.
37.
The Supreme Court handed down a decision in 2013 in Agency for Int’l Dev. v. Alliance
for Open Society Int’l that said what? a) Abortion protests
cannot take place in front of hospitals; b) What organizations say that does
not align with governmental goals must be paid for with their own money; c) The
KKK cannot demonstrate in front of government buildings; d) Anonymous speech
gets as much protection as speech whose speaker is known; e) All funeral
protest laws are unconstitutional.
38.
In 2014, the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts abortion
clinic buffer zone in McCullen
v. Coakley. What was the majority’s rationale for doing this? a)
The law was not sufficiently narrowly tailored to meet the government’s goals;
b) The law could not survive strict scrutiny; c) Any buffer zone law should be
held unconstitutional; d) The law was viewpoint-discriminatory; e) The law was
overbroad.
39.
According to the Fourth Circuit in Bland v. Roberts,
clicking “Like” on a Facebook page is: a) unprotected speech; b) not speech at
all; c) entitled to the same protection as typing “I like this” in text; d) not
really indicative of anything; e) none of these.
40.
In Cooksey
v. Futrell, what issue was before the Fourth Circuit? a) Political
speech supporting a Republican candidate for office; b) Instructions on
building a bomb; c) A libelous statement about an ex-spouse; d) Abortion clinic
buffer zones; e) Dietary advice given without a license to do so.
SCORING KEY, CH. 3
1. C
2. C
3. D
4. E
5. A
6. C
7. D
8. D
9. D
10.
E
11.
D
12.
B
13.
E
14.
C
15.
A
16.
C
17.
C
18.
B
19.
B
20.
B
21.
A
22.
B
23.
A
24.
A
25.
B
26.
C
27.
B
28.
C
29.
D
30.
E
31.
B
32.
D
33.
A
34.
C
35.
B
36.
D
37.
B
38.
A
39.
C
40.
E
CHAPTER 4. LIBEL AND SLANDER
1. In
lawsuits involving public issues that are covered by the mass media, the
elements of libel now include all of the following except: a) defamation; b)
dissemination; c) identification; d) some kind of fault; e) absence of malice.
2. The
common law defenses in libel actions include all of the following except: a)
truth; b) malicious intent; c) privilege; d) fair comment.
3. The
landmark New York
Times v. Sullivan decision established a new requirement that
public officials who sue for libel must prove actual malice. As defined in this
case, actual malice means: a) ill will or evil intentions; b) publishing a
falsehood with evil intentions; c) publishing a falsehood with knowledge or
with negligence; d) publishing a falsehood with knowledge or with reckless
disregard for the truth; e) publishing anything that isn’t true.
4. The
Supreme Court extended the actual malice rule to public figures as well as
public officials for the first time in: a) Gertz v. Welch; b) Herbert v. Lando;
c) Rosenbloom v.
Metromedia; d) Time
v. Hill; e) Curtis
Publishing v. Butts.
5. In
the 1974 case of Gertz
v. Welch, the Supreme Court authorized the states to: a) exempt
private persons from proving actual malice if they could prove at least
negligence; b) eliminate the actual malice requirement for all but the most
prominent elected officials; c) redefine everyone except politicians as private
persons; d) require public officials to prove negligence instead of actual
malice; e) let public figures sue for libel without proving any fault.
6. Some
well-known people are treated as private persons (as opposed to public figures)
in libel lawsuits today. This practice was encouraged by several Supreme Court
decisions of the 1970s, including: a) Megarry
v. Norton and Time
v. Hill; b) Time
v. Hill and Time
v. Firestone; c) Herbert
v. Lando and Time
v. Firestone; d) Hutchinson
v. Proxmire and Time
v. Firestone; e) Curtis
v. Butts and Calder
v. Jones.
7. How
did Dun &
Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders affect the actual malice
rule? a) it didn’t affect it; b) it exempted public figures from the actual
malice requirement; c) it exempted private persons from the actual malice
requirement; d) it excluded libel cases involving purely private matters
(rather than issues of public concern) from the actual malice requirement; e)
it abolished the actual malice requirement.
8. Most
libel plaintiffs must bear the burden of proving any allegedly defamatory
statement to be false; the defendant usually does not have the burden of
proving the statement true. This principle was strengthened by a 1986 Supreme
Court decision that said all states must place the burden of proof on the
plaintiff, at least in cases involving issues of public concern. The case:
a) Keeton v. Hustler;
b) Bose v. Consumers
Union; c) Philadelphia
Newspapers v. Hepps; d) Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby; e) Dun
& Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders.
9. The
Supreme Court ruled that appellate courts may review and overturn a trial
court’s determination that actual malice is present in: a) Bose v. Consumers Union;
b) Herbert v. Lando;
c) Keeton v. Hustler;
d) Calder v. Jones;
e) Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby.
10.
Mass communicators may be forced to defend libel cases in
courtrooms thousands of miles from where they live and work, according to the
Supreme Court’s decision in: a) Calder
v. Jones; b) Bindrim
v. Mitchell; c) Braun
v. Chronicle Publishing Co.; d) Herbert v. Lando; e) Gertz v. Welch.
11.
A federal appeals court held in 2002 that a newspaper could not
be sued in Virginia for material posted on its website, hosted in another
state. The case: a) Young
v. New Haven Advocate; b) Keeton
v. Hustler; c) Calder
v. Jones; d) Herbert
v. Lando; e) Gertz
v. Welch.
12.
In 1986 the Supreme Court said public figures who sue for libel
should have their cases dismissed on summary judgment (that is, without a
trial) unless they can show actual malice by clear and convincing proof. The court
so ruled in the case of: a) Keeton
v. Hustler; b) Bose
v. Consumers Union; c) Philadelphia
Newspapers v. Hepps; d) Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby; e) Dun
& Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders.
13.
A number of states have enacted anti-SLAPP laws. These laws are
primarily intended to: a) abolish libel suits by public officials; b) abolish
libel suits against public officials; c) protect those who speak out about
public issues from harassment lawsuits; d) protect ordinary citizens who are
libeled by making it easier for them to sue; e) protect public officials who
are libeled by making it easier for them to sue.
14.
Since public figures must prove actual malice, it is only fair
to let them inquire into the thought processes and attitudes of journalists who
produce an allegedly libelous story. The Supreme Court announced this principle
in: a) Calder v.
Jones; b) Keeton
v. Hustler; c) Herbert
v. Lando; d) Hutchinson
v. Proxmire; e) Milkovich
v. Lorain Journal.
15.
In the 1991 case of Masson
v. New Yorker Magazine, the Supreme Court ruled that: a) all
plaintiffs must prove actual malice in libel cases; b) actual malice must be
proven in “emotional distress” cases as well as libel cases; c) journalists may
make minor changes in quotations without committing a libel; d) most libel
cases should be dismissed on summary judgment; e) all of these.
16.
The Supreme Court has held that a public figure who sues
for intentional
infliction of emotional distress must prove actual malice on
the part of a media defendant, just as he/she would in a libel case. The
Supreme Court announced this principle in: a) Hustler Magazine v. Falwell; b) Keeton v. Hustler;
c) Herbert v. Lando;
d) Hutchinson v.
Proxmire; e) Milkovich
v. Lorain Journal.
17.
Which of the following may not sue for libel in most states? a)
corporations; b) private individuals; c) government agencies; d) public
officials; e) public figures.
18.
Who may be sued for libel when a libelous letter to the editor
is published in a newspaper? a) the editor; b) the publisher; c) the author of
the letter; d) the corporate owner of the newspaper; e) all of these.
19.
In Milkovich
v. Lorain Journal, the Supreme Court held that: a) a sports column
may be libelous if it contains false facts as well as protected expressions of
opinion; b) sports columns, editorials and letters to the editor are all exempt
from libel lawsuits under the First Amendment; c) sports columns are exempt
from libel, but letters to the editor are not; d) sports columns are not exempt
from libel, but letters to the editor are exempt; e) Milkovich had
nothing to do with a sports column in a newspaper.
20.
Suppose an editorial in
a newspaper charges that all five members of the local city council are
incompetent. Under the law in most states, who may successfully sue
for libel? a) each council member; b) only the mayor; c) only the council as a
whole; d) no one because this is an expression of opinion; e) no one because no
individual may ever be libeled by criticism of any group, no matter how small.
21.
Now suppose a news
story falsely reports that all five city council members have
accepted bribes and violated campaign finance laws. Under the law in most
states, who may successfully sue
for libel? a) no one; b) each council member; c) only the mayor; d) only the
council as a whole; e) the city manager.
22.
The Ninth Circuit refused to allow a Section 230 defense against
a charge of promissory estoppel in which case? a) Hustler Magazine v. Falwell;
b) Keeton v. Hustler;
c) Herbert v. Lando;
d) Hutchinson v.
Proxmire; e) Barnes
v. Yahoo! Inc.
23.
In Noonan
v. Staples, the First Circuit called what traditional libel defense
into question, based on state law? a) privilege; b) truth; c) fair comment; d)
neutral reportage.
24.
Appellate courts have generally held that _______ bars claims
against social networking sites like MySpace for sexual assaults that occur
between individuals who met on those sites. a) neutral reportage; b) truth; c)
Section 230; d) long-arm jurisdiction; e) summary judgment.
25.
“Trash talk,” like calling someone a whore or a skank, is still
considered to be libelous online, said a state court in the case: a) Barnes v. Yahoo! Inc.; b) Fustolo v. Hollander;
c) Cohen v.
Google; d) Howell
v. Enterprise Publishing Co.; e) Hutchinson v. Proxmire.
26.
The SPEECH Act (Securing the Protection of our Enduring and
Established Constitutional Heritage) is a protection against: a) foreign libel
judgments that would have failed under U.S. libel rules; b) allegations of
actual malice by foreign governments; c) invasions of privacy by foreign
governments; d) damages awarded by foreign governments; e) all of the above.
27.
Former Agricultural Department employee Shirley Sherrod sued
conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart because he: a) posted libelous comments
about her on his website; b) edited a video clip of her in such a way as to
defame her; c) physically assaulted her; d) plagiarized a speech she had given;
e) stalked her.
28.
In what case did the courts first refuse to extend Section
230 protection to a blog site because of its encouragement of offensive posts,
and then overturn the ruling so as to extend the protection? a) Barnes v. Yahoo! Inc.; b) Fustolo v. Hollander;
c) Jones v. Dirty
World Entm’t Recordings; d) Blockowicz v. Williams; e) Hutchinson v. Proxmire.
29.
In what case(s) did the “caustic personality” defense save a
defendant from a libel judgment? a) Jones
v. Dirty World Entm’t Recordings; b) Burke v. Gregg; c) Gardner v. Martino; d)
Both B and C; e) A, B, and C.
30.
What is “defamation by implication?” a) Misspelling a person’s
name in a story; b) Juxtaposing facts in such a way as to suggest a defamatory
connection ; c) Defaming someone’s family member; d) Acting in a negligent
manner; e) None of these.
31.
In Seaton
v. TripAdvisor, LLC, the appellate court said that TripAdvisor’s
list of the “dirtiest hotels” was not defamatory to one of the hotels on the
list because: a) TripAdvisor was clear about the source of the information (its
users); b) the list was full of hyperbolic language; c) the list was not meant
to be factual; d) Both A and B; e) A, B and C.
SCORING KEY, CH. 4
1. E
2. B
3. D
4. E
5. A
6. D
7. D
8. C
9. A
10.
A
11.
A
12.
D
13.
C
14.
C
15.
C
16.
A
17.
C
18.
E
19.
A
20.
D
21.
B
22.
E
23.
B
24.
C
25.
C
26.
A
27.
B
28.
C
29.
D
30.
B
31.
D
Comments
Post a Comment