1.  A city enacted an ordinance banning from its public sidewalks all machines dispensing publications consisting wholly of commercial advertisements. The ordinance was enacted because of a concern about the adverse aesthetic effects of litter from publications distributed on the public sidewalks and streets. However, the city continued to allow machines dispensing other types of publications on the public sidewalks. As a result of the city’s ordinance, 30 of the 300 sidewalk machines that were dispensing publications in the city were removed.

Is the city’s ordinance constitutional?

(A) Yes, because regulations of commercial speech are subject only to the requirement that they be rationally related to a legitimate state goal, and that requirement is satisfied here.

(B) Yes, because the city has a compelling interest in protecting the aesthetics of its sidewalks and streets, and such a ban is necessary to vindicate this interest.

(C) No, because it does not constitute the least restrictive means with which to protect the aesthetics of the city’s sidewalks and streets.

(D) No, because there is not a reasonable fit between the legitimate interest of the city in preserving the aesthetics of its sidewalks and streets and the means it chose to advance that interest.

2.  Two students in an advanced high school Russian class got into an argument one day in the high school cafeteria. In the presence of other students, the first student, in Russian, accused the second student of taking money from the first student’s locker. The second student sued the first student based on defamation.

Will the second student prevail?

(A) Yes, because the first student’s accusation constituted slander per se.

(B) Yes, because the defamatory statement was made in the presence of third persons.

(C) No, unless the first student made the accusation with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth.

(D) No, unless one or more of the other students understood