1according to the supreme court, which of these most likely prompted the arrest of the protesters in edwards v. south carolina?

the protestors supported an unpopular view.
the protesters assembled in front of the statehouse.
the protesters were a threat to public safety.
the protesters marched without a permit.

2 for prior restraint to apply, what must the government prove about the speech in question?

the speech must be libelous.
the speech must present a general threat.
the speech must present a clear and identifiable danger.
the speech must be offensive.

3 which statement best describes the precedent set by the supreme court in new york times v. united states regarding government censorship?

government censorship is fine if there is a good reason.
government censorship is almost always unconstitutional.
government censorship must further national interests.
government censorship does not apply to opinions.

Answer 1: The protestors supported an unpopular view.

Edwards v. South Carolina was a case in which the Supreme Court held that state government officials are not allowed to force a crowd to disperse if they are otherwise legally marching in front of a state house. The decision was based on the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution. The Supreme Court argued that the arrests were an attempt to make criminal the peaceful expression of unpopular views, and therefore an infringement on the marchers’ right of free speech, free assembly and freedom to petition for a redress of grievances.

Answer 2: The speech must present a clear and identifiable danger.

A prior restraint is an official restriction of speech prior to its publication. They are extremely serious, as they are a violation of First Amendment rights. Therefore, they are used with caution. Judges need to use the “clear and present danger” test before resorting to a prior restraint. The “gravity of the evil,” discounted by its improbability, must justify the invasion of free speech.

Answer 3: Government censorship is almost always unconstitutional.

New York Times Co. v. United States was a decision by the Supreme Court that made it possible for the New York Times and the Washington Post to publish the Pentagon Papers without government censorship.

President Nixon had tried to stop the publication, arguing that the Papers constituted classified information. The Court stated that “any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” In other words, it is assumed that any attempt by the government to censor the media is unconstitutional. In order to change the Court’s opinion, there must be significant proof that the expression of the material would cause irreparable damage and represent a grave danger to the American public. The burden of proof is heavy, and it was not met by the Nixon administration.

affirmative action refers to the policies that take gender, race, or ethnicity into account in order to promote equal opportunity.

employers subject to title vii are prohibited from taking race or sex into account in any employment decisions. aa is a penalty for having any job group substantially statistically "underutilized" in any race or either sex. the employer must take steps to eliminate the underutilization, then stop, ending its aa efforts

answer by yourhope:

the speaker of which statement would be best served by joining an interest group?

i want politicians to make more of an effort for lgbt rights!

: )