CASE MATCHING – match the case with the pertinent legal concept or topic. Each concept/topic can only be used once. 1: Edwards v. National Audubon Society 2: Konaté v. Burkina Faso 3: New York Times v. Sullivan 4: Near v. Minnesota 5: Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project 6: Hustler Magazine v. Falwell 7: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 8: Texas v. Johnson 9: Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co 10: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District

Options

A.Fighting words

B.Opinion as libel defense

C.Actual malice in libel

D.Prior restraint

E.Material support clause

F.Criminal defamation

G.Neutral Reportage

H.Symbolic speech

I.Speech in schools

J.Emotional distress

View Explanation

Verified Answer

Please login to view

Step-by-Step Analysis

Starting with the provided case list and the ten conceptual topics, we assess each option in relation to the corresponding case, then explain why it fits or does not fit. Option 1 corresponds to Fighting words. Edwards v. National Audubon Society is generally associated with a different concept in defamation and standing discussions, but among the given pairings, this option does not align with Fighting words because the case is not primarily about unprotected expressions directed at others in a way that incites immediate physical retaliation; instead, the core issues involve environmental or organizational standing rather than the specific fighting-words doctrine. Option 2 corresponds to Opinion as libel defense. Konaté v. Burkina Faso is not primarily about treating a statement as merely an opinion that cannot be actionable; rather, the case involves questions about the criminalizati......Login to view full explanation

Log in for full answers

We've collected over 50,000 authentic exam questions and detailed explanations from around the globe. Log in now and get instant access to the answers!