A public university adopts a regulation banning the display of banners that advocate imminent violent actions against specific groups. A student argues that this regulation violates their First Amendment rights. What is the most likely outcome of the student's challenge?
The regulation is unconstitutional unless the university can demonstrate that the banners caused actual violence on campus.
The regulation violates the First Amendment as some advocacy of violence is protected speech.
The regulation is questionable because it targets specific viewpoints, which is not allowed under the First Amendment.
The university’s regulation is constitutional because imminent violent actions constitutes unprotected speech and can be regulated.
The correct answer is that the university’s regulation is constitutional because advocating imminent violent actions is considered unprotected speech, such as incitement, which the First Amendment allows the government to regulate. The other options incorrectly either overextend First Amendment protections or impose unreasonable requirements on the regulation.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does 'unprotected speech' mean in the context of the First Amendment?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is the standard used by courts to evaluate regulations on speech that advocates violence?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What role do universities have in regulating student speech on their campuses?