Law & Ethics Final
.
Questions and Answers
- 1.
The federal government exercises exclusive jurisdiction over
Explanation
The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over broadcasting and cable regulations, copyright, patent, and access to federal government. This means that these areas are under the sole control and authority of the federal government, and no other entity or level of government can make decisions or regulations regarding them. The federal government has the power to establish and enforce rules and laws in these areas to ensure fair and consistent practices, protect intellectual property rights, and regulate access to federal government resources.Rate this question:
- 2.
2.Federal and state judicial systems consist of two basic kinds of courts. They are:
Explanation
The federal and state judicial systems are composed of two main types of courts, namely trial courts and appellate courts. Trial courts are responsible for hearing and deciding cases for the first time, where evidence is presented, and witnesses are called. These courts determine the facts of a case and apply the law to those facts. On the other hand, appellate courts review the decisions made by trial courts to ensure that the law was correctly applied. They do not reexamine the facts of a case but focus on legal errors or issues raised by the parties involved.Rate this question:
- 3.
The party who initiates a civil lawsuit is called the
Explanation
The party who initiates a civil lawsuit is called the plaintiff. In a civil case, the plaintiff is the individual or entity that brings a legal action against another party, known as the defendant. The plaintiff is responsible for presenting their case and providing evidence to support their claims. They seek a legal remedy or compensation for the harm or injury they have suffered. The defendant, on the other hand, is the party being sued and must respond to the plaintiff's allegations in court.Rate this question:
- 4.
Which of the following wrongful acts most likely would be a breach of contract rather than a tort?
Explanation
The correct answer is breach of contract. A breach of contract occurs when one party fails to fulfill their obligations as outlined in a written agreement between two parties. This is considered a breach of the contractual terms and can lead to legal consequences, such as damages or specific performance. On the other hand, a tort refers to any other wrongful act that causes harm or injury to another person, which is not specifically related to a contractual agreement.Rate this question:
- 5.
The First Amendment was for the first time applied to the states in the landmark 1925 case of
Explanation
In the landmark 1925 case of Gitlow v. New York, the First Amendment was applied to the states for the first time. This case involved the arrest and conviction of Benjamin Gitlow, a socialist, for distributing left-wing literature advocating for the overthrow of the government. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment's protection of free speech and press applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision established an important precedent for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to apply to state governments as well.Rate this question:
- 6.
What was the most important case to formalize the doctrine against prior restraint?
Explanation
Near v. Minnesota is the correct answer because it was a landmark Supreme Court case that established the doctrine against prior restraint. In this case, the Court ruled that a state law allowing the government to censor and prohibit "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory" publications violated the First Amendment's protection of freedom of the press. This decision was significant as it firmly established the principle that the government cannot engage in prior restraint, meaning it cannot censor or prohibit speech or publications before they are made. This case set an important precedent for protecting freedom of expression in the United States.Rate this question:
- 7.
Prior restraints can arise through
Explanation
Near v. Minnesota is a landmark Supreme Court case that established the principle that prior restraints on the freedom of the press are unconstitutional. In this case, the Court ruled that a state law allowing the government to permanently enjoin the publication of a newspaper deemed "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory" violated the First Amendment. The decision emphasized the importance of a free press in a democratic society and set a precedent that prior restraints should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances, such as national security threats. Therefore, the correct answer refers to the case that dealt with the issue of prior restraints.Rate this question:
- 8.
.In most cases, content restrictions on protected expression can be upheld only if
Explanation
Content restrictions on protected expression can only be upheld if they directly serve the interests of the government and if they are not broader than what is necessary to advance that interest. This means that the restrictions must be specifically targeted towards achieving a legitimate government objective, and they should not go beyond what is required to achieve that objective. In other words, the restrictions should be narrowly tailored and proportionate to the government's interests.Rate this question:
- 9.
What First Amendment standard emerged out of Schenck v. United States?
Explanation
The First Amendment standard that emerged out of Schenck v. United States is the "clear-and-present danger" standard. This standard was established by the Supreme Court in 1919 and it states that speech can be restricted if it presents a clear and present danger to the public or if it poses a direct threat to national security. In this case, the Court ruled that Schenck's distribution of anti-war pamphlets during World War I posed a clear and present danger to the country and therefore his speech was not protected by the First Amendment.Rate this question:
- 10.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio the Supreme Court held that speech remains protected until
Explanation
The Supreme Court held in Brandenburg v. Ohio that speech remains protected under the First Amendment until it is likely to incite imminent unlawful action. This means that individuals have the right to express their opinions and ideas freely, as long as their speech does not pose an immediate threat of illegal activity. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of protecting free speech while also recognizing the need to balance it with public safety concerns.Rate this question:
- 11.
What message came out of the Pentagon Papers case?
Explanation
The message that came out of the Pentagon Papers case is that the government has a significant responsibility to provide sufficient justification for restricting political speech before it occurs. The courts are not obligated to simply trust the judgment of the executive branch, but rather, it is the government's duty to persuade a court that there is a genuine threat or danger that warrants such restrictions.Rate this question:
- 12.
.In most kinds of personal injury cases, the legal basis for a lawsuit is that the defendant acted with
Explanation
In most personal injury cases, the legal basis for a lawsuit is that the defendant acted with negligence. This means that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm or injury to the plaintiff. Negligence can include actions such as careless driving, medical malpractice, or failure to maintain safe premises. To successfully pursue a personal injury case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's negligence directly caused their injuries, and that they suffered damages as a result. Negligence is a common legal concept used to establish liability in personal injury cases.Rate this question:
- 13.
Why are the so-called Pied Piper cases particularly troublesome for mass communicators?
Explanation
The so-called Pied Piper cases are particularly troublesome for mass communicators because imitation is typically not an intended result. These cases refer to situations where a message or content spreads rapidly and widely, often due to its viral nature or the influence of a popular figure. However, this can lead to unintended consequences, such as misinformation or harmful behavior being imitated by others. Mass communicators strive to effectively convey their intended message, but the Pied Piper cases highlight the challenge of controlling how content is interpreted and replicated by the audience.Rate this question:
- 14.
The 1927 case of Whitney v. California is particularly noteworthy for a concurring opinion because:
Explanation
In the 1927 case of Whitney v. California, the concurring opinion is significant because it introduces the Bad Tendency Rule and marks Justice Brandeis' initial support for the incitement standard. This means that the opinion supports the idea that speech can be restricted if it has the potential to lead to harmful or dangerous consequences, even if it does not directly incite illegal actions. This interpretation of the First Amendment allows for a broader scope of speech regulation and has had a lasting impact on free speech jurisprudence in the United States.Rate this question:
- 15.
Libel may be defined as a false statement of fact that is disseminated about a person and tends to
Explanation
Libel is a legal term that refers to the act of spreading false information about someone that damages their reputation. It involves making false statements of fact about a person and disseminating them to others. The key element of libel is that it causes harm to the person's reputation, which can have serious consequences for their personal and professional life. Therefore, the correct answer is "Injure the person's reputation."Rate this question:
- 16.
.The U.S. Supreme Court first injected constitutional standards into defamation law in 1964, in the case of
Explanation
In the case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the U.S. Supreme Court introduced constitutional standards into defamation law for the first time in 1964. This landmark case established that public officials must prove "actual malice" in order to successfully sue for defamation. The Court ruled that the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and the press, and that public figures should have a higher burden of proof in defamation cases to prevent chilling effects on free speech. This decision had a significant impact on defamation law in the United States and continues to shape the legal landscape surrounding defamation cases.Rate this question:
- 17.
Who can be defamed?
Explanation
Defamation refers to making false statements about someone that harm their reputation. In this context, the correct answer states that any living person and a business can be defamed, but not the dead. This means that only individuals who are alive and businesses can be subjected to defamation, as the reputation of deceased individuals cannot be affected by false statements.Rate this question:
- 18.
How false must a communicator's statement be in order for a libel plaintiff to win a lawsuit?
Explanation
In a libel lawsuit, for the plaintiff to win, the communicator's statement must be substantially false. This means that the statement must be significantly untrue or inaccurate, to the point where it harms the reputation of the plaintiff. A minor inaccuracy or a partially false statement may not be sufficient grounds for a successful lawsuit. The substantial falsity of the statement is a key factor in determining the outcome of a libel case.Rate this question:
- 19.
In Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps the Supreme Court held that the libel plaintiff must shoulder the burden of proving defamatory statements false.
Explanation
In the case of Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps, the Supreme Court ruled that in a libel case, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defamatory statements made against them are false. This means that the plaintiff must provide evidence to show that the statements are untrue, rather than the defendant having to prove their truth. This decision places the responsibility on the party claiming defamation to prove their case, ensuring that freedom of speech is protected and preventing potential abuse of libel laws.Rate this question:
- 20.
Which of the following is true about the identification element of a libel case?
Explanation
In a libel case, it is not necessary to identify the Plaintiff by name. It is sufficient to describe the person alone for identification purposes. However, it is important that the statement is specifically "of and concerning the plaintiff" in order to establish a valid claim of libel.Rate this question:
- 21.
.For private-person plaintiffs it is constitutionally permissible to win a libel lawsuit by showing no greater degree of fault than mere negligence.
Explanation
Private-person plaintiffs can win a libel lawsuit by showing no greater degree of fault than mere negligence because the Constitution allows for it. This means that if a private individual can prove that the defendant acted negligently in publishing false information that harmed their reputation, they can successfully sue for libel. Mere negligence refers to a lack of reasonable care or failure to exercise caution, which is considered sufficient to hold someone accountable for their actions in a libel case involving private individuals.Rate this question:
- 22.
The key justification for the Supreme Court's "actual malice" requirement in New York Times v. Sullivan may be stated as follows:
Explanation
The Supreme Court's "actual malice" requirement in New York Times v. Sullivan means that in order to prove defamation against a public figure, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant knowingly made false statements or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This standard was established to protect freedom of speech and the press, as it recognizes the importance of robust public debate and allows for the expression of unpopular or controversial opinions without fear of legal repercussions. By requiring a higher level of fault, the Court aimed to prevent public figures from using defamation lawsuits to silence criticism or dissenting viewpoints.Rate this question:
- 23.
The "public record" privilege allows the media to
Explanation
The "public record" privilege allows the media to have access to records that are available to the public. This privilege enables them to gather information and report accurately on what is said in official government proceedings.Rate this question:
- 24.
In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., the Supreme Court pulled in the reins on the scope of constitutionally protected opinion. Specifically, what was the rule of law that emerged from Milkovich?
Explanation
The rule of law that emerged from Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. is that statements of opinion are not automatically protected under the First Amendment. In order to be considered protected opinion, the statement must be based on disclosed facts or contain a clear indication that it is subjective rather than factual. This means that if a statement can be reasonably interpreted as implying false facts, it can be considered defamatory and not protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, the correct answer is defamation.Rate this question:
- 25.
In New York Times v. Sullivan the plaintiff was required to prove a degree of fault called "actual malice." What is meant by the term actual malice?
Explanation
The term "actual malice" in the context of New York Times v. Sullivan refers to the requirement for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant made false statements with either knowing falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth. In other words, the plaintiff had to demonstrate that the defendant either intentionally lied or showed a complete disregard for the truth when making the statements in question. This higher standard of fault was established to protect freedom of speech and press in defamation cases involving public officials.Rate this question:
- 26.
The Supreme Court laid the foundation for today's approach to obscenity law in what 1950s case?
Explanation
In the case of Roth v. United States, the Supreme Court played a crucial role in shaping the modern approach to obscenity law. This landmark case, which took place in the 1950s, established the "Roth test" for determining what material is considered obscene and therefore not protected by the First Amendment. The court ruled that obscene material is not protected speech and can be regulated by the government. This case set the precedent for future obscenity cases and continues to influence the interpretation of free speech rights in relation to obscenity.Rate this question:
- 27.
According to the ruling in Pope v. Illinois, all three parts of the Miller test are to be determined with reference to local community standards.
Explanation
The ruling in Pope v. Illinois does not state that all three parts of the Miller test are to be determined with reference to local community standards. The Miller test is a three-pronged test used to determine if material is obscene, and it includes the following criteria: whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law, and whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.Rate this question:
- 28.
.If material is obscene under the Miller test, this means that
Explanation
If material is deemed obscene under the Miller test, it implies that jurisdictions have the authority to prohibit or ban the material if they choose to do so. The Miller test is a standard used by courts to determine whether certain material is obscene and therefore not protected by the First Amendment. This answer suggests that jurisdictions have the discretion to enforce laws against obscene material based on their own judgment and policies.Rate this question:
- 29.
The most important factor in ethics is which of the following?
Explanation
Ethics is a branch of philosophy that deals with moral principles and values. Truth is considered the most important factor in ethics because it forms the foundation for ethical decision-making. Being truthful involves honesty, integrity, and transparency, which are essential for maintaining trust and credibility in relationships and society. Without truth, ethical standards would be compromised, and it would be difficult to distinguish right from wrong. Therefore, truth serves as a guiding principle in ethical behavior and is crucial for fostering a just and moral society.Rate this question:
- 30.
Invading the privacy of politicians requires which of the following?
Explanation
The question is asking about the requirements for invading the privacy of politicians. The correct answer is "Placed in larger context of history, Evidence linked to political behavior, and Must meet need to know." This means that in order to invade the privacy of politicians, the invasion must be justified by placing it in the larger context of history, providing evidence that is linked to their political behavior, and ensuring that there is a legitimate need to know.Rate this question:
- 31.
Practicing deception requires which of the following?
Explanation
This question is asking for the requirements for practicing deception. The correct answer choices are "Profound importance," "No other alternatives," "Can you reveal the deception to the public?," "Harm perverted outweighs harm caused," and "All involved make a decision based on." These requirements suggest that for deception to be practiced, it must be of significant importance, there must be no other options available, the possibility of revealing the deception to the public must be considered, the harm caused by the deception must be outweighed by the benefits, and all involved parties must agree on the decision.Rate this question:
- 32.
Which of the following is the optimum level of decision-making?
Explanation
The optimum level of decision-making is determined by the impact of credibility. This means that the level of decision-making should be based on the credibility of the information or factors involved in the decision. The more credible the information or factors, the higher the level of decision-making should be. This ensures that decisions are made based on reliable and trustworthy information, leading to more effective and successful outcomes.Rate this question:
- 33.
State open-meeting laws require not only that meetings be conducted openly, but also that
Explanation
State open-meeting laws require agencies to provide advance public notice of their meetings in addition to conducting them openly. This means that the agencies are obligated to inform the public about the date, time, and location of the meeting in advance. This requirement ensures transparency and allows interested individuals to attend and participate in the meetings if they choose to do so. By providing advance public notice, the agencies comply with the open-meeting laws and promote accountability and public engagement.Rate this question:
- 34.
The state open-meeting laws typically apply to
Explanation
State open-meeting laws are regulations that govern the transparency and accessibility of meetings held by government bodies. These laws generally apply to multimember deliberative bodies of local government, such as city councils, county planning commissions, and school boards. They also apply to multimember agencies of state government. These laws ensure that the decision-making processes of these government bodies are open to the public and allow for public participation and scrutiny.Rate this question:
- 35.
Whether a "meeting" is taking place is determined by
Explanation
The determination of whether a "meeting" is taking place depends on three factors: the notice and agenda requirements, the number of members present, and the nature of the discussion. The notice and agenda requirements ensure that members are informed about the meeting and its purpose. The number of members present indicates the quorum, which is necessary for a valid meeting. Finally, the nature of the discussion refers to the topics being discussed, which can determine if it qualifies as a meeting.Rate this question:
- 36.
Which of the following is NOT one of the typical exceptions to the public-meeting requirement?
Explanation
The correct answer is "Agencies must conduct meetings openly". This is because the question asks for the exception to the public-meeting requirement, and all the other options listed are exceptions to this requirement.Rate this question:
- 37.
The federal Sunshine Act applies only to
Explanation
The federal Sunshine Act applies only to the executive branch, excluding the White House Staff. It specifically applies to agencies that are headed by a collegial body composed of two or more individual members, a majority of whom are appointed to such position by the President with advice and consent of the Senate. This means that the Sunshine Act does not apply to the White House Staff or agencies that do not meet the specified criteria.Rate this question:
- 38.
Under the federal Freedom of Information Act, the public and media have a right to inspect documents of
Explanation
Under the federal Freedom of Information Act, the public and media are granted the right to access and examine documents belonging to the executive branch of government. However, this right does not extend to the president and his immediate staff. This limitation ensures that certain confidential or sensitive information is protected and not disclosed to the public or media.Rate this question:
- 39.
The FOIA specifies how many disclosure exemptions that government may use to keep documents secret
Explanation
The correct answer is 9 disclosure exemptions. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) outlines the number of exemptions that the government can utilize to withhold certain documents from public disclosure. These exemptions serve to protect sensitive information, such as national security, personal privacy, law enforcement records, and confidential business information. By having 9 disclosure exemptions, the FOIA ensures a balance between transparency and the need to safeguard certain types of information.Rate this question:
- 40.
Courts have held that the impartial-jury guarantee in the Constitution refers to a jury that
Explanation
The impartial-jury guarantee in the Constitution refers to a jury that is open and unprejudiced when evidence is presented. This means that the jury should not have any preconceived notions or biases that could influence their decision-making process. They should be willing to consider all the evidence and arguments presented in the courtroom without any preconceived judgments. This ensures that the defendant receives a fair trial and that justice is served.Rate this question:
- 41.
By virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment's protections for criminal defendants apply to state prosecutions as well as federal ones.
Explanation
The statement is true because the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that individuals are protected from unfair treatment by the government, including during criminal prosecutions. The Sixth Amendment guarantees certain rights for criminal defendants, such as the right to a fair trial, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to legal representation. The Fourteenth Amendment extends these protections to state prosecutions, ensuring that individuals facing criminal charges in state courts also have these rights. Therefore, the statement is correct.Rate this question:
- 42.
What observation did Chief Justice Warren Burger make in his 1976 majority opinion in Nebraska Pres Association v. Stuart?
Explanation
In his 1976 majority opinion in Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, Chief Justice Warren Burger stated that no priority is assigned between the First and Sixth Amendments. This means that both the freedom of the press (First Amendment) and the right to a fair trial (Sixth Amendment) are considered equally important and should be balanced when they come into conflict. This implies that the court should carefully consider both constitutional rights when making decisions that involve issues related to the press and fair trial.Rate this question:
- 43.
Gag orders aimed at media coverage of legal proceedings can be constitutionally valid only in extremely rare circumstances, when the trial judge specifically finds that
Explanation
The correct answer is a summary of the conditions that must be met for a gag order aimed at media coverage of legal proceedings to be constitutionally valid. These conditions include intense and pervasive pretrial publicity about the case, the ineffectiveness of alternative measures to offset the effects of the publicity, and the ability of a gag order to prevent the danger of prejudicial influence. These circumstances are considered extremely rare and require specific findings by the trial judge.Rate this question:
- 44.
Which of the following are most appropriate for combating the effects of publicity concurrent with trial, rather than pretrial publicity?
Explanation
Jury admonishment and sequestration are most appropriate for combating the effects of publicity concurrent with trial, rather than pretrial publicity. Jury admonishment involves instructing the jurors to disregard any media coverage or outside influences and to base their decision solely on the evidence presented in court. Sequestration, on the other hand, refers to isolating the jury from the media and public during the trial, ensuring that they are not exposed to any potentially biased information. These measures are specifically designed to minimize the impact of publicity during the trial and to ensure a fair and impartial verdict.Rate this question:
- 45.
.Gag orders on trial participants, such as lawyers, are considered a form of prior restraint on the media.
Explanation
Gag orders on trial participants, such as lawyers, restrict their ability to communicate with the media about the ongoing trial. This can be seen as a form of prior restraint on the media because it prevents them from obtaining information and reporting on the proceedings. By limiting the flow of information, gag orders can restrict the media's ability to fulfill its role as a watchdog and inform the public about important legal matters. Therefore, the statement "Gag orders on trial participants, such as lawyers, are considered a form of prior restraint on the media" is true.Rate this question:
- 46.
Courtroom access rights were first established in what landmark case?
Explanation
The landmark case of Richmond Newspapers, Inc Vs Virginia established the rights of courtroom access. This case recognized that the public and the press have a constitutional right to attend criminal trials. It emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability in the judicial system. The ruling in this case set a precedent for open access to courtrooms, ensuring that justice is conducted in a fair and public manner.Rate this question:
- 47.
Which of the following is NOT one of the elements to the four-prong test that evolved from Press-Enterprise?
Explanation
The given answer is a repetition of the elements of the four-prong test that evolved from Press-Enterprise. It accurately lists all the elements of the test, including the substantial probability of damaging overriding interests, the absence of reasonable alternatives to closure, the requirement for articulated reasons in the trial record, and the necessity of limited closure.Rate this question:
- 48.
.In Chandler v. Florida the Supreme Court made it clear that allowing cameras in the courtroom is
Explanation
The Supreme Court's decision in Chandler v. Florida established that the use of cameras in the courtroom is permissible and acceptable.Rate this question:
- 49.
Under current law, media cameras are generally permitted in
Explanation
Media cameras are generally allowed in courtrooms, but the decision is ultimately up to the judge's discretion. However, the use of media cameras is prohibited in federal court proceedings and in the majority of state courts, including both trial and appellate courts.Rate this question:
- 50.
The Supreme Court decision in Branzburg v. Hayes has led to
Explanation
The Supreme Court decision in Branzburg v. Hayes established a qualified right for journalists to withhold information from the courts. This means that journalists may have the ability to protect their sources and confidential information in certain circumstances. However, this right is not absolute and can be overridden if the information is deemed crucial to a case or investigation. The decision recognizes the importance of a free press while also acknowledging the need for a fair and effective judicial system.Rate this question:
Quiz Review Timeline +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Mar 21, 2023Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
Apr 23, 2012Quiz Created by
Bperets
Back to top