Search

In Stock

Major Principles of Media Law 2015 1st Edition By Genelle Belmas – Test Bank

Instant delivery only

  • ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1285764498
  • ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1285764498

$28.00

Compare
SKU:tb1002334

Major Principles of Media Law 2015 1st Edition By Genelle Belmas – Test Bank

QUESTION POOL FOR EXAM #3 COMMUNICATIONS LAW
(covering Chapters 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 in
Major Principles of Media Law, 2015 edition)

CHAPTER 10. OBSCENITY AND THE LAW

1. During the 1800s, a high-profile crusade against pornography was led by: a) Grover Cleveland; b) William Lloyd Garrison; c) Horace Greeley; d) Anthony Comstock; e) Elijah Lovejoy.

2. In 1957, the Supreme Court defined obscenity by asking, “whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest.” That was in the case of: a) Bloom v. Municipal Court; b) Roth v. U.S.; c) Miller v. California; d) U.S. v. Thirty-Seven Photographs; e) Pinkus v. U.S.

3. In a 1964 decision, a plurality of the Supreme Court said the case cited in the last question required national standards for obscenity. This 1964 case was: a) Hannegin v. Esquire; b) Roth v. U.S.; c) Jacobellis v. Ohio; d) Cohen v. California; e) Jenkins v. Georgia.

4. In an important 1966 decision, a plurality of the Supreme Court revised the legal test for obscenity to include the lack of “redeeming social value.” The case: a) Miller v. California; b) Memoirs v. Massachusetts; c) Jacobellis v. Ohio; d) Hannegin v. Esquire; e) Cohen v. California.

5. During the 1950s and 1960s the Supreme Court was often unable to agree upon a majority opinion in obscenity cases because two justices took the absolutist position that no restrictions on obscene matter are permitted by the First Amendment. Which two justices took this position? a) Warren and Douglas; b) Blackmun and Douglas; c) Warren and Black; d) Douglas and Black; e) Brennan and Warren.

6. The Supreme Court in 1969 upheld the right to read or view even legally obscene adult materials in the privacy of one’s home because “a state has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch.” The case? a) U.S. v. Thirty-Seven Photographs; b) Stanley v. Georgia; c) Regina v. Hicklin; d) Miller v. California; e) Pringle v. Covina.

7. In 1973, the Supreme Court again modified the legal definition of obscenity. The court ruled that the states could abandon the “redeeming social value” test and also allow community standards to vary from place to place (within certain limits). The case: a) Cohen v. California; b) Jenkins v. Georgia; c) Ginsberg v. New York; d) Miller v. California; e) Memoirs v. Massachusetts.

8. The 1987 Pope v. Illinois decision of the Supreme Court: a) held that an objective “reasonable man” standard must be used to determine if a work has “serious… value;” b) reinstated the “redeeming social value” test; c) curtailed the use of nuisance law against “adult” businesses; d) curtailed the use of zoning ordinances against “adult” businesses; e) said nudity has no constitutional protection.

9. The Supreme Court has often allowed the states to adopt more restrictive anti-pornography laws for minors than for adults. The court rejected a constitutional challenge to such a law in: a) Ginsberg v. New York; b) Jacobellis v. Ohio; c) Jenkins v. Georgia; d) Renton v. Playtime Theatres; e) Miller v. California.

10. The Supreme Court allowed a state to criminalize even the private possession of “kiddie porn” in the case of: a) Crawford v. Lungren; b) Jacobellis v. Ohio; c) Jenkins v. Georgia; d) Renton v. Playtime Theatres; e) Osborne v. Ohio.

 

Reviews

There are no reviews yet.

Write a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to Top
Product has been added to your cart