Question: The City of Fayetteville has an ordinance that prohibits the posting of fliers on buildings and utility poles. The ordinance provides for an exception for notices of Hawg pep rallies, which may be posted from noon Wednesday until noon Friday. The notices must be no larger than 11 x 14 inches and must be removed by noon Friday.
Which of the following statements is true?
A. The ordinance is probably a constitutional restriction on speech, because it contains reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.
B. The ordinance is probably unconstitutional because it is content-based.
C. The City has a compelling interest in keeping litter off its streets and the ordinance as written is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
Sometimes, a multiple-choice question is more straightforward. For example:
Question: The Privacy Protection Act of 1980 protects a journalist's notes, videotape and other work product from:
A. Search Warrant
B. Subpoena
C. Publication
The answer is A.
What is a better practice, though, is to hold up your hand and explain to me (so that others can't hear you) why you feel the question is ambiguous. There are many ways I can help you see the question more clearly, and I do not object to your asking anything other than "Is this right?" If you ask a question I can't answer, I'll tell you, but I may still be able to help point you in the right direction. DON'T BE SHY ABOUT ASKING FOR HELP.
It's very important that you give me evidence you understand the law that you are copying off the card. First of all, you have to copy the "right" law off the card. But then, it's not enough, either, just to paraphrase what's on the card. In fact, that can get you into trouble because oftentimes you must give me back the exact words I call for.
Here's why: The law is often administered according to "tests" that the court devises to make it easy for lower courts to follow its lead. So if the test is "the reporter's account must be 'fair and accurate,'" I won't give you full credit if you write "the reporter's account must be truthful and not one-sided." That's not the "test" the court devised, so that's not what would be applied.
Students get upset with me because I count off for such lapses. However, if you will read the question carefully, you'll see that as much as I can, I'll tell you: "Be sure to use the term of art associated with the law."
Another thing that won't help you on the exam and sometimes can lead to your losing points is doing a "mind dump." I want you to apply the law I've taught you to the hypothetical -- I don't want to know everything you know about the subject. That doesn't mean I restrict how much you can write. It's known in academic circles that some students function better when they are allowed to write a lot.
However, just as I would not give you credit for answering "A or B" on a multiple-choice question, I also cannot give you credit on an essay question if, in a mind dump, you write about legal concepts that do not apply to the hypothetical.
For instance, in the question below, if you described both actual malice and negligence as the standard of fault, I would count off points because negligence would not apply.
The Daily Snooze published a letter to the editor from Larry Loser, who failed in his attempt to defeat Iman Incumbent in the campaign for constable. Loser called Incumbent "a Californicator." He also said Incumbent was "a failure as a businessman." Incumbent wants to sue Loser for libel.
QUESTION: What standard of fault would Incumbent, the plaintiff, have to prove? Why?
SAMPLE ANSWER: The standard of fault that Incumbent would have to prove would be actual malice because he was running for constable, making him a pubic figure, and he also was the incumbent constable, making him a public official. Public officials and public figures must prove actual malice in a libel suit.
If it is your learning style to be compelled to mention negligence, then you would have to do it in this manner:
SAMPLE ANSWER: The standard of fault that Incumbent would have to prove would be actual malice because he was running for constable, making him a public figure, and he also was the incumbent constable, making him a public official.. Public officials and public figures must prove actual malice in a libel suit. Negligence, the standard of fault required to be proven by private plaintiffs in Arkansas, would not be applicable to the case because Incumbent is not a private plaintiff.
I would prefer the first answer, however, because it's more straightforward.
I try to help you with this as much as I can by making my essay questions very specific. For instance, in a more detailed question for the hypothetical above, notice the specifics asked for.
QUESTION: What standard of fault would Incumbent, the plaintiff, have to prove? Why? Be sure to use the terms of art associated with the area of law when you explain why. (18 points -- 8 for naming the standard; 10 for explanation.)
BAD SAMPLE ANSWER: Incumbent would have to prove actual malice because he was libeled by Loser.
(This answer leaves out the real reason the actual malice is the standard of fault -- because Incumbent is running for office, which makes him a public figure, and because he is the incumbent constable, which makes him a public official. Both require actual malice.)
Try to find the balance between a "mind dump" and not answering the question completely.
actual malice
incumbent constable = public official
POs & PFs -- actual malice/libel
That way, when you write your answer, you won't forget to cover some of the points you think of. This is especially important in the longer essay questions with multiple parts.
The open-book exam will require you to write several pages of
analysis. Some of you might need to have an extra bluebook.
The exam will be a very lengthy hypothetical out
of which you will have to find a number of media law issues and analyze
them. Do not fool yourself into believing that you don't have to study
for this exam. Most of your time will be needed to identify the media
law issues and apply the law. You won't have time to look up
information you have not yet seen or consult notes you have taken or
copied but not absorbed.
If you answer the questions by doing no more than copying information from your notes, you will not do well. I require readable, well-thought out, clear answers. Be sure to articulate your answers fully, so that I can tell you understand what you are saying. Again, don't do a mind dump. Some of the answers require that you EXCLUDE information that doesn't apply.
You are required to cite the law that you are applying to the hypothetical. You can't just write "you can't do that" or "the judge can't do that." Which law are you talking about? Name it. "The constitution" or "common law" or "Arkansas law."
Be sure you understand where are you in the process of the hypothetical -- pre-arrest? pre-trial? at trial?
Again, be sure to step on every stone. Check each of your answers and be sure you have explained "why" you have made a statement.
You may use only your notes and your book, Mass
Communication Law in Arkansas by Plopper (the required book for the
course).
See also: Practice Exam