quiz
The supreme Courts position on prior restraint of the press is that
prior restraint should occur only under very compelling circumstances, and it is better to hold the press responsible for what it has printed than to restrict what it may print.
School Prayer in the public schools was rules unconstitutional in
Engle v. Vitale (1962)
the fourth amendment protects Americans from
unreasonable searches
Spoken words that are known to be false and harmful to a person's reputation are referred to as
slander
Which of the following, relative to the others, is typically more protective of individual rights?
the judiciary
if a person yells "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and people are hurt in the ensuring panic, that individual has abused their freedom of speech, according to the doctrine of
clear and present danger
in deciding two 2014 cases involving the legality of searching a suspect's cell phone, the Supreme Court ruled that
the cell phone cannot be searched in most circumstances without a warrant
What was the main conclusion of the Supreme Courts 2008 decision in District of Colombia v Heller and 2010 decision in McDonald v Chicago?
Citizens are allowed to own guns for the legitimate purposes, such as for protecting the home
"You have the right to remain silent... anything you say can and will be used against you in court of law... you have the right to an attorney." this is called the
Miranda warning
According to the Supreme Court, prayer in public schools violates
the establishment clause
The freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and religion are found in
the first amendment
The individual freedoms in the Bill of Rights were extended by the Fourteenth Amendment to include protection from deprivation of due process rights by
actions of state and local governments
the USA Patriot Act
all these answers are correct
In the Johnson flag-burning case, the Supreme Court ruled that flag burning
cannot be prohibited even though it may be offensive
in a 2004 case involving the issue of whether a U.S. citizen accused of terrorist acts is entitled to constitutional protections, the Supreme Court held that such citizens
do have the right to challenge their own detentions in court
The exclusionary rule states that
evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible in court