Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 88 views

    Brandenburg Vs Ohio (Dancel)

    Uploaded by

    Jonathan Dancel
    The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Ku Klux Klan leader Clarence Brandenburg under Ohio's criminal syndicalism law for a speech he gave at a KKK rally. The Court established a two-part test for determining if speech advocating violence is protected by the First Amendment: (1) the speech must be directed at inciting imminent lawless action and (2) it must be likely to produce such action. Brandenburg's speech did not meet this test because it advocated future violence rather than imminent violence, so his conviction violated his right to free speech.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Brandenburg Vs Ohio (Dancel)

    Uploaded by

    Jonathan Dancel
    88 views1 page
    The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Ku Klux Klan leader Clarence Brandenburg under Ohio's criminal syndicalism law for a speech he gave at a KKK rally. The Court established a two-part test for determining if speech advocating violence is protected by the First Amendment: (1) the speech must be directed at inciting imminent lawless action and (2) it must be likely to produce such action. Brandenburg's speech did not meet this test because it advocated future violence rather than imminent violence, so his conviction violated his right to free speech.

    Original Description:

    consti 2

    Original Title

    Brandenburg vs Ohio [Dancel]

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Ku Klux Klan leader Clarence Brandenburg under Ohio's criminal syndicalism law for a speech he gave at a KKK rally. The Court established a two-part test for determining if speech advocating violence is protected by the First Amendment: (1) the speech must be directed at inciting imminent lawless action and (2) it must be likely to produce such action. Brandenburg's speech did not meet this test because it advocated future violence rather than imminent violence, so his conviction violated his right to free speech.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    88 views1 page

    Brandenburg Vs Ohio (Dancel)

    Uploaded by

    Jonathan Dancel
    The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Ku Klux Klan leader Clarence Brandenburg under Ohio's criminal syndicalism law for a speech he gave at a KKK rally. The Court established a two-part test for determining if speech advocating violence is protected by the First Amendment: (1) the speech must be directed at inciting imminent lawless action and (2) it must be likely to produce such action. Brandenburg's speech did not meet this test because it advocated future violence rather than imminent violence, so his conviction violated his right to free speech.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    BRANDENBURG vs OHIO (1969) Amendment right to freedom of speech.

    The Supreme
    Court of Ohio dismissed his appeal without opinion.
    [Per Curiam]
    II. ISSUES:
    SUMMARY AND DOCTRINE
    Whether or not Ohio's criminal syndicalism law,
    An Ohio law prohibited the teaching or prohibiting public speech that advocates various
    advocacy of the doctrines of criminal illegal activities, violate Brandenburg's right to free
    syndicalism. The Defendant, Brandenburg, speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth
    a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a Amendments?
    speech promoting the taking of vengeful III. RATIO:
    actions against government and was
    therefore convicted under the Ohio Law. The Court's Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law
    violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The
    Speech can be prohibited if it is Court said Brandenburg's comments at the KKK rally
    “directed at inciting or producing were protected by the freedom of speech. His
    imminent lawless action” and it is likely conviction, then, was unconstitutional.
    to incite or produce such action.
    The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate
    In order for “incitement to violence” speech speech acts:
    to be constitutionally barred, the language
    (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting
    must (1) expressly advocate violence; (2)
    or producing imminent lawless action" and
    advocate immediate violence and (3)
    relate to violence likely to occur. (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." The
    criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy
    and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or
    I.FACTS: not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite
    imminent lawless action. The failure to make this
    Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader distinction rendered the law overly broad and in
    in rural Ohio, contacted a reporter at a Cincinnati violation of the Constitution.
    television station and invited him to cover a KKK rally
    that would take place in Hamilton County in the The Court made its decision by distinguishing
    summer of 1964. Portions of the rally were filmed, between two kinds of violent speech. One kind incites,
    showing several men in robes and hoods, some or encourages, immediate violence against the
    carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then government. For example, Brandenburg would have
    making speeches. One of the speeches made encouraged immediate violence if he had said, "let's
    reference to the possibility of "revengeance" [sic] go right now and burn down the building where they're
    against "Niggers", "Jews", and those who supported passing laws to help the civil rights movement." The
    them. One of the speeches also claimed that "our
    Supreme Court said speech that encourages
    President, our Congress, our Supreme Court,
    immediate violence and is likely to succeed is not
    continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race",
    and announced plans for a march on Washington to protected by the freedom of speech. It is too
    take place on the Fourth of July. Brandenburg was dangerous.
    charged with advocating violence under Ohio's
    Brandenburg, however, did not encourage immediate
    criminal syndicalism statute for his participation in the
    rally and for the speech he made. In relevant part, the violence. He said if the government continued to
    statute – enacted in 1919 during the First Red Scare – support the civil rights movement, the KKK might have
    proscribed "advocat[ing]...the duty, necessity, or to seek revenge in the future. The Supreme Court
    propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful ruled that the First Amendment protects such speech.
    methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing The spirit of the Court's decision was that such
    industrial or political reform" and "voluntarily speech can be valuable because it gets society
    assembl[ing] with any society, group or assemblage of talking about what is good and bad about the
    persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of government. It allows people to explore what is
    criminal syndicalism". working, and what needs to be changed. Although the
    Supreme Court did not agree with Brandenburg's
    Convicted in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton opinions, it said the freedom of speech protected his
    County, Brandenburg was fined $1,000 and
    right to share those opinions with others.
    sentenced to one to ten years in prison. On appeal,
    the Ohio First District Court of Appeal affirmed
    Brandenburg's conviction, rejecting his claim that the
    statute violated his First Amendment and Fourteenth

    You might also like