Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Advocacy and incitement are two categories of speech, the latter of which is a more specific type of the former directed to producing imminent lawless action and which is likely to incite or produce such action.
Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v.
The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action". [8] In the early 20th century, incitement was determined by the "clear and present danger" standard established in Schenck v.
Under Brandenburg, even advocacy of illegal conduct is constitutionally protected unless it is both "directed" at inciting "imminent lawless action" and "likely" to do so.
Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient. The original 1974 decision mandated warning the threatened ...
To provide individualized treatment, supervision, and placement services by a conservatorship program for gravely disabled persons; To encourage the full use of all existing agencies, professional personnel and public funds to accomplish these objectives and to prevent duplication of services and unnecessary expenditures;
A Southern California city just threw down the gauntlet against Gov. Gavin Newsom’s immigration policy. Huntington Beach, a city of around 200,000 in Orange County, passed a “non-sanctuary ...
In addition, despite the speech being broadcast on network television it did not direct to incite or produce imminent lawless action nor was it likely to produce such action. In 1972, the Court held that offensive and insulting language, even when directed at specific individuals, is not fighting words: Gooding v.