A state legislature passes a law banning the distribution of flyers criticizing the government, claiming the law is necessary to promote civil harmony and prevent social unrest. An individual challenges the law as unconstitutional under the First Amendment. How should the court evaluate the constitutionality of this law?
The court will apply intermediate scrutiny, assessing whether the law is substantially related to an important governmental interest.
The court will apply strict scrutiny, requiring the state to show a compelling interest and that the ban is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
The court will consider whether the law’s effects on speech are incidental and whether it serves a legitimate state interest.
The court will uphold the law if it finds the government acted reasonably to promote public order and prevent discord.
The correct answer explains that laws regulating speech based on content, like the one banning flyers critical of the government, are analyzed under strict scrutiny—a standard requiring the government to show a compelling interest and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve its purpose. The court is extremely unlikely to find preventing 'social unrest' as a compelling interest sufficient to justify the restriction. The other answers misstate or misapply the framework, such as incorrectly asserting that intermediate scrutiny applies or failing to acknowledge that restrictions targeting specific viewpoints are highly suspect under First Amendment jurisprudence.
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 strict scrutiny mean in legal terms?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is the First Amendment and what rights does it protect?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is intermediate scrutiny, and when is it applied?