Answers -- Fun, Facts, and Trivia
December 2003 Issue

The Dirksen Center wants to help teachers teach better by giving them the opportunity to use technology to create, customize, and share online learning activities in their classrooms. The Center wants to help students learn more by bringing educational resources together in one place that provide new ways to learn about Congress interactively.

More Freedom Frenzy

Can you burn the flag? Test your Freedom of Speech knowledge at: http://www.congressforkids.net/games/billofrights/2_billofrights.htm

1. Which form of speech did the Supreme Court label as unprotected by the First Amendment in Roth v. US (1957)?

A) Libel
B) Fighting words
C) Symbolic Speech
D) Obscenity - "Roth v. US" (1957) dealt with obscenity and set up the first many tests used to determine what qualifies as obscene.

2. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) provided further protection for dangerous speech by adding what requirement to the clear and present danger test?

A) Lucidity
B) Severity
C) Imminence - This case dealt with statements made by KKK members at a rally about taking revenge on the government. The court ruled that "dangerous" speech cannot be silenced unless there is a threat of "imminent lawless action".
D) Sedition

3. Texas v. Johnson (1989) is an important case concerning symbolic speech. Which form of symbolic speech did the Supreme Court uphold in this case?

A) Wearing arm bands in school
B) Cross burning
C) Flag burning - The Texas law against flag burning violates the first amendment because it inhibits the expression of an idea symbolized by the burning of a flag. However, a law banning outdoor fires could be used to prosecute those who burn the flag.
D) Draft card burning

Critical Thinking

The "fighting words" doctrine suggests that a speaker may be silenced because his or her words might provoke a violent retaliation from the listener. This approach to free speech effectively gives the audience the power to silence any message that they consider offensive enough to warrant violence. What do you think? To what extent should government be able to quiet someone in order to protect them from the backlash created by their own words? Is a "fighting words" exception to the First Amendment a dangerous loophole in protection of free expression? Or is it a reasonable relaxation of those protections, available for public authorities when they lack adequate resources to protect an unpopular minority?

Answers to the November issue of Fun, Facts, and Trivia link here: http://www.webcommunicator.org/funfactstrivia1103ans.htm

Do you have or know of an online activity you would like The Dirksen Congressional Center to feature on its new Web site for students -- Congress for Kids? The Center is currently seeking online activities that provide new ways to learn about Congress and the workings of the federal government interactively.

If you have questions or suggestions for online activities, contact Cindy Koeppel.