benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU-Pro / 1101 / To preserve the appearance and accessibility of its capitol building, a state…

Problem

Answer published by the source. Consult the official source to check your work against its answer.

question

To preserve the appearance and accessibility of its capitol building, a state enacted a law prohibiting "the display of any sign on any portion of the public sidewalk surrounding" the building. A group of five demonstrators who wanted to protest inadequate state funding for children's services applied for a permit to march single file on the sidewalk surrounding the capitol building. Each demonstrator planned to carry a two-foot-square sign that would read, "Our lawmakers do not care about our children." The group's permit application was denied pursuant to the state law, and the group has filed an action challenging the law's constitutionality. Should the court uphold the law's constitutionality?

category

law

options

  1. Yes, because the prohibition against the display of signs is necessary to maintain the aesthetic appeal of the capitol building.
  2. No, because the prohibition violates the demonstrators' right to peaceful protest.
  3. Yes, because the prohibition against the display of signs is a reasonable restriction in a non-public forum.
  4. No, because the prohibition against the display of signs is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
  5. No, because the sidewalk at issue is a public forum, and the prohibition against the display of signs is not narrowly tailored to serve a substantial government interest.
  6. Yes, because the sidewalk at issue is not a public forum, and the prohibition against the display of signs is reasonable.
  7. No, because even though the sidewalk at issue is not a public forum, the prohibition against the display of signs is more restrictive than needed to serve a legitimate government interest. government interest.
  8. No, because the prohibition against the display of signs is a violation of the demonstrators' freedom of speech.
  9. Yes, because even though the sidewalk at issue is a public forum, the prohibition against the display of signs is necessary to serve a compelling public interest.
  10. Yes, because the sidewalk around the capitol building is private property, and the prohibition against the display of signs is a reasonable restriction.

src

ori_mmlu-professional_law

Discussion

Discussion

No discussion posts on this page yet. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

See answer Answer published by the source

Artifacts

Code, notes and reproducible work shared by participants. Files are served from a separate origin.

No artifacts on this page yet. Share reproducible code or notes in a contribution. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

Source and history

upstream_id / Original problem ID
1101
task_id
30002bd2-4958-56f1-81c5-075b5eceeb8a
task_key
default--test--1101
task_revision_id
1
config / split
default / test

Official source

initial import