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