1. A city enacted an ordinance banning from its public
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
(B) Yes, because the defamatory statement was made in the presence of
(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