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".
Case Docket no. Question(s) presented Certiorari granted Oral argument Barrett v. United States: 24-5774: Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and§ 924(j), a question that divides seven circuits but about which the Solicitor General and Petitioner agree.
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 ...
An Ohio federal judge dismissed the case last year, saying she had not shown the "background circumstances" to support her discrimination claim. The 6th Circuit upheld that decision last December.
The Ohio Supreme Court will take yet another look at the legality of the state's congressional districts after the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday set aside a ruling striking down the districts and ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
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.
This week we explain the lawsuit filed over Ohio's new Congressional districts, attempted election fraud and a civil suit in the House Bill 6 scandal.