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".
The court ruled unanimously that although she had not committed any crimes, her relationship with the Communists represented a "bad tendency" and thus was unprotected. The "bad tendency" test was finally overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and was replaced by the "imminent lawless action" test.
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.
The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio 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 imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." [9]
The Supreme Court overturned that test in 1969, in Brandenburg vs. Ohio. Walz’s distortion of the First Amendment was a direct reply to Vance’s call for "Democrats and Republicans to reject ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Case name Citation Date decided United States v. King: 395 U.S. 1: 1969: Leary v. United States: 395 U.S. 6: 1969: United States v. Covington: 395 U.S. 57: 1969
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us