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 ...
Brandenburg v. Ohio: Free Speech: 395 U.S. 444 (1969) freedom of speech, incitement to riot Powell v. McCormack: 395 U.S. 486 (1969) political question doctrine, justiciability: Kramer v. Union School District: 395 U.S. 621 (1969) right to vote in a special election district Lear, Inc. v. Adkins: 395 U.S. 653 (1969)
The hearing is named after a 1965 case, People v. Walker, and is used to determine if a statement was given voluntarily and knowingly. If not, the statement can't be used as evidence in a trial.
Discover the latest breaking news in the U.S. and around the world — politics, weather, entertainment, lifestyle, finance, sports and much more.
Get breaking news and the latest headlines on business, entertainment, politics, world news, tech, sports, videos and much more from AOL
Three companies will pay $110 million to the state of Ohio to settle a lawsuit charging them with dumping "forever" chemicals in the Ohio River.
While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973) in which the court found that Hess's words were protected under "his rights to free speech ", [ 3 ] in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite ...