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".
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 ...
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 395; Shouting fire in a crowded theater; Threatening the president of the United States; Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919) Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969) Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) Dennis v. United States 341 U.S. 494 (1951) Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S ...
He is asking the justices to reject the Colorado Supreme Court's conclusion that he is disqualified from running for president. Trump's Supreme Court Brief Rebuts the Claim That He 'Engaged in ...
The U.S. Supreme Court during its last term handed Donald Trump victories in three major cases. Seven important cases featuring Trump as the defendant are currently in the lower courts - two ...
Donald Trump’s return to power is creating a reality television-like competition for attention among a group of black-robed candidates – some of whom may hope to one day wind up on the Supreme ...
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court established a two-part test for speech qualifying as incitement and without protection by the First Amendment if that speech is: "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action"; and "likely to incite or produce such action". [283] [284] [285]
The Supreme Court offered some specific guidance on the conduct at issue in the criminal case brought by special counsel Jack Smith against Trump over his alleged efforts to overturn the results ...