Laws that are designed to suppress the publication of particular viewpoints in the US are reviewed under a judicial standard of:

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The question asks about the judicial standard applied to laws designed to suppress publication of particular viewpoints in the United States.
Option 1: 'rational basis review' is the most deferential standard, used for most non-fundamental classifications and does not typically apply to content-based restrictions on speech aimed at suppressing viewpoints. Its standard is typically automatic with a minimal justification, which does not fit suppressive viewpoint bans.
Option 2: 'time, place, manner' restrictions refer to permissible controls on when, where, or how speech may occur. While they regulate expressive activity, they do not themselves define the level of strict scrutiny for censorship of viewpoints; instead, they are subject to narrow tailoring and intermediate considerations in many contexts, but not the core standard for viewpoint suppression.
Option 3: 'strict scrutiny' is the high standard applied to laws that target speech or suppress viewpoints, especially when the law is content-based or aims at limiting First Amendment rights. Under strict scrutiny, the government must show a compelling interest and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, with the least restrictive means. This aligns with laws designed to suppress particular viewpoints, which are typically invalidated unless the government can meet the demanding test.
Option 4: 'intermediate scrutiny' applies to cases involving substantial government interest and substantial relation to achieving that interest, often used for gender or certain time, place, or manner restrictions, but it is not the standard generally used for viewpoint suppression in speech cases. Therefore it does not fit the described scenario.
In summary, content-based restrictions on speech that aim to suppress particular viewpoints are evaluated under the most stringent standard, ensuring the government proves a compelling interest and narrow tailoring, rather than a more lenient basis, making strict scrutiny the appropriate framework here.

Laws that are designed to suppress the publication of particular viewpoints in the US are reviewed under a judicial standard of:

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech for all individuals and in all cases.

According to the lecture, how is the right to free speech often framed?

Strossen argues that censoring pornography would do more harm than good.

The First Amendment protects even speech that violates criminal laws.

Speech counts as “protected” if...

“Chilling effect” is a term that describes:

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler