Conduct that Communicates

A group of environmental activists gathers in a public park, burning fake oil company stock certificates to protest climate change policies. Under the O’Brien Test, when may the government regulate their conduct?

• If the regulation is content-based and targets their message specifically.

• If the regulation furthers an important government interest and is unrelated to suppressing speech

• If the government dislikes the viewpoint being expressed.

• If the activists refuse to apply for a permit, even if it’s not required.

A viral social media challenge involves burning U.S. flags as a form of protest against government policies. Based on Texas v. Johnson, is this protected under the First Amendment?

• No, flag burning is never protected speech.

• Yes, because the Supreme Court ruled that flag burning is symbolic speech.

• Only if the person is a U.S. citizen.

• Only if the majority of the public agrees with the message.

A social media platform bans all political ads to prevent election misinformation. Can the government force the platform to host political content?

• Yes, under the First Amendment, all speech must be allowed on social media.

• Yes, but only during election season.

• Only if the ads come from verified sources.

• No, because private companies are not subject to First Amendment constraints.

A billionaire runs for governor and spends $50 million of their own money on their campaign. Can the state limit their spending?

• Yes, but only for television ads.

• Only if they receive public funding.

• No, based on Buckley v. Valeo.

• Yes, to create a fair playing field.

A famous TikToker burns their voter registration card on camera to protest election laws. Under United States v. O’Brien, can the government prosecute them?

• Yes, if the law prohibiting destruction of voter registration cards serves an important, non-speech related interest.

• No, because burning government-issued documents is always legal.

• Only if they burn another person’s voter card.

• No, because all symbolic speech is protected.

A political action committee (PAC) is considering launching a campaign to support a

candidate by spending $500,000 on independent advertisements.

• The PAC can legally spend unlimited money because the First Amendment protects

  independent expenditures.

• The PAC cannot exceed $250,000 in spending due to contribution limits established

  in McCutcheon v. FEC.

• The PAC’s spending must be disclosed, but it cannot be regulated as it supports a

  specific candidate.

• The PAC can only spend if it receives prior approval from the candidate’s campaign.

In a hypothetical election, a corporation spends $10 million on an independent

advertising campaign opposing a gubernatorial candidate without coordinating with any

candidate’s campaign. How might the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision

apply to this scenario?

• The spending must be regulated to ensure equal political expression among

  candidates.

• The spending is unconstitutional because it contributes to the appearance of

  corruption.

• The corporation’s spending is protected as free speech under the First Amendment.

• The corporation can only spend within the limits set by state laws.

In a recent town meeting, a group displayed large banners with messages criticizing

local government spending decisions. Applying the Supreme Court’s standards for

symbolic speech, which of the following factors is most critical in determining whether

their conduct is protected under the First Amendment?

• The banners included commercial advertisements.

• The government had a compelling interest in regulating protests.

• The banners were displayed at a private event.

• The intent to convey a message was clear to the audience.

a public university enacts a policy banning students from

wearing political symbols, citing disruption to the educational environment. What is the most

likely outcome if this policy is challenged in court?

• The policy will be upheld because it prevents disruption to the educational

  environment.

• The policy will be struck down as it infringes on students’ rights to express political

  views through symbolic conduct.

• The policy is valid as it relates to a substantial government interest in maintaining

  order during classes.

• The policy will be invalidated because political symbols are not considered expressive

  conduct.

A new law is proposed

in a state that triples contribution limits for candidates opposing anyone spending over

$500,000 of their own money. Analyze whether this law would likely withstand First

Amendment scrutiny and choose the best explanation.

• Yes, it promotes fairness in elections by balancing funding disparities.

• No, it treats candidates unequally, violating the principle established in Davis v. FEC.

• Yes, it is constitutional because it aligns with the government’s interest in electoral

  competitiveness.

• No, it would be upheld because it increases overall political speech for all candidates.