Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
King v. Smith; Levy v. Louisiana; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) - Amicus curiae for John W. Terry; Washington v. Lee; 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) - represented Clarence Brandenburg; Gregory v. Chicago; Street v. New York; Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) - represented the ...
Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case [1] involving the First Amendment that reaffirmed and clarified the imminent lawless action test first articulated in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Hess is still cited by courts to protect speech threatening future lawless action. [2]
Nos. 12-3176, 12-3644 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT CHRISTOPHER HEDGES, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BARACK OBAMA, individually and as
Brandenburg v. Ohio , 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (in part) United States , 250 U.S. 616 (1919), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the criminal arrests of several defendants under the Sedition Act of 1918 , which was an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917 .
Brandenburg clarified what constituted a "clear and present danger", the standard established by Schenck v. United States (1919), and overruled Whitney v. California (1927), which had held that speech that merely advocated violence could be made illegal.
While Trump's brief claims that his speech at the Ellipse was protected by the First Amendment, [70] theirs argues that it was not because it qualified as an inciting speech under Brandenburg v. Ohio. [71] Whereas Trump's brief claims that disqualification under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is limited to holding office, as opposed to ...
The brief makes 15 references to a 2001 article on impeachment by prominent legal scholar Brian Kalt, asserting that he had concluded that impeaching a former president is unconstitutional. Kalt replied that Trump's lawyers made "flat-out misrepresentations" of his work and that he had actually concluded that there is a "solid basis" for post ...