enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

    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".

  3. Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded...

    The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. 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 ...

  4. 'The Constitution Is Not a Suicide Pact' - AOL

    www.aol.com/news/constitution-not-suicide-pact...

    The justices ditched the "clear and present danger" standard half a century later in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which involved racist and antisemitic public remarks by a Ku Klux Klan leader who raised ...

  5. List of court cases involving the American Civil Liberties Union

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_court_cases...

    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 ...

  6. Facial challenge - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_challenge

    For instance, the court applied facial challenges to invalidate challenged statutes in Brown v. Board of Education under the Equal Protection Clause, Brandenburg v. Ohio under the First Amendment, and United States v. Lopez under the Commerce Clause. Also, the article asserts that contrary to popular belief, facial challenges are not framed by ...

  7. 'No Reasonable Officer' Would Have Arrested a Guy for a ... - AOL

    www.aol.com/news/no-reasonable-officer-arrested...

    For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us

  8. Imminent lawless action - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

    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.

  9. The dangers of marijuana. 3 arguments against Ohio Issue 2 - AOL

    www.aol.com/dangers-marijuana-3-arguments...

    Here are three arguments against Issue 1 which would allow adults to legally use marijuana in Ohio.