answersLogoWhite

0

Still curious? Ask our experts.

Chat with our AI personalities

ReneRene
Change my mind. I dare you.
Chat with Rene
RossRoss
Every question is just a happy little opportunity.
Chat with Ross
FranFran
I've made my fair share of mistakes, and if I can help you avoid a few, I'd sure like to try.
Chat with Fran

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: You’re reading material outlines the controversy surrounding the teaching of certain theories In public school science class which constitutional amendment is most relevant to this debate?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Continue Learning about American Government

What is non material and material culture?

Material culture is the physical or technological aspects of a culture in our daily lives. In laymen's terms, things that show our social class, and how we live, materially. "Do we place a lot of emphasis on our material possessions or not?" Examples of this would be our cars, houses, clothing, computers (or other technological gadgets) etc.Non-material culture is the cultural adjustments to material conditions, or in laymen's terms our customs, beliefs, patterns of communication, and the ways we use material objects. Examples of this include, politics, economics, language, rules, customs, family, religion or beliefs, values, and knowledge.


What is the name of the test used by the US Supreme Court to determine whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene?

The Miller Test, or "Three Prong Obscenity Test," was established via the US Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. California, 413 US 14 (1973).The criteria a trier-of-fact must consider when determining whether material is obscene follows:"(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, [Roth, supra, at 489,](b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary."In Jacobelis v. Ohio, 378 US 184 (1964) Court determined "obscenity" did not qualify for First Amendment protection, but were unable to agree on a definition or standard. Justice Potter Stewart's famous quote best summarized the dilemma of the Court:"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced...but I know it when I see it..."The Supreme Court attempted to address the issue a second time in Roth v. United States, 354 US 476 (1957), but the opinion in that case gave little more guidance:"The standard for judging obscenity, adequate to withstand the charge of constitutional infirmity, is whether, to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest."The Miller Test incorporated the definition in Roth, which the Court held to be unconstitutional on its own, but expanded the criteria in an effort to introduce more considerations, as a proxy for objectivity. The "three prongs" listed above comprise the current obscenity test (2010).For more information, see Related Questions, below.


In the finding evaluating and interpreting source material stage of the research process interpreting means?

thinking about how the source material applies to your question.


What is The material products of past societies?

Artifacts


Is obscenity entitled to constitutional protections?

No, obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment; however, the concept is ill-defined and subjective. Some forms of expression that certain people consider obscene or offensive may be protected, and community standards of decency tend to change over time.As Justice Potter Stewart opined in his concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 US 184 (1964):"I have reached the conclusion, which I think is confirmed at least by negative implication in the Court's decisions since Roth and Alberts, that, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, criminal laws in this area are constitutionally limited to hard core pornography. I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."For more information, see Related Questions, below.