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 ...
(Overruled by Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952)) Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) Expressions in which the circumstances are intended to result in crime that poses a clear and present danger of succeeding can be punished without violating the First Amendment. (Overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)) Abrams v.
Corn Products Refining Co. v. Commissioner: 350 U.S. 46 (1955) Hedging futures gains are ordinary if on raw materials United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp. 350 U.S. 332 (1956) contracts under the Natural Gas Act of 1938: Federal Power Commission v. Sierra Pacific Power Co. 350 U.S. 348 (1956) contracts under the Federal Power Act ...
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 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 ...
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]
In the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a statute that punishes mere advocacy and forbids, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action, falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Justice Louis Brandeis argued in Whitney v.