Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. [4]
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".
The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action". [8] In the early 20th century, incitement was determined by the "clear and present danger" standard established in Schenck v.
Under Brandenburg, even advocacy of illegal conduct is constitutionally protected unless it is both "directed" at inciting "imminent lawless action" and "likely" to do so.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
More than 135 years after Ohio passed a law to curb vigilante justice, AG Dave Yost is warning that protestors could run afoul of that same law.
Advocacy and incitement are two categories of speech, the latter of which is a more specific type of the former directed to producing imminent lawless action and which is likely to incite or produce such action.
Ohio in 1969, in which the Supreme Court held that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."