Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States [1] that held that the First Amendment protected radical and reactionary speech, unless it posed a "clear and present danger".
Holmes dissented in Abrams, explaining how the clear and present danger test should be employed to overturn Abrams' conviction. The re-emergence of the bad tendency test resulted in a string of cases after Abrams employing that test, including Whitney v.
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.
Luttig’s written statement to the committee cast the situation in unflinching terms. “A stake was driven through the heart of American democracy on January 6, 2021, and our democracy today is ...
Those later cases were informed by the government's actions against its critics during World War II, at which time attitudes had changed since Abrams which was engendered by World War I. [4] A key turning point was a Second Circuit opinion by Judge Learned Hand in U.S. v. Dennis in 1950, [16] critiquing the clear and present danger standard. [17]
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction of an individual who had engaged in speech that raised a clear and present danger to society. [1]
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".