Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
37 bytes removed ,  18:32, June 15, 2011
no edit summary
Line 1: Line 1: −
In '''''Brandenburg v. Ohio''''', 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] substantially limited the ability of the government to censor "threatening" or "inflammatory" speech.  Brandenburg, a [[Ku Klux Klan]] leader, was convicted of "advocating...violence or other unlawful methods of terrorism" after he gave a speech calling for "revengeance" [sic] on blacks, Jews, immigrants, and other groups.  The Supreme Court overturned his conviction, holding taht the statute was unconstitutional under the [[First Amendment]] because the statute failed to recognize that "the mere abstract teaching ... of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action" (quoting ''Noto v. United States'', 367 U.S. 290, 297-298 (1961)).  The Court instead created a new test for when the state may punish a person for advocating illegal acts.  The speaker must intend to incite violence, and the speech must be likely to incite immediate or imminent lawless action.   
+
In '''''Brandenburg v. Ohio''''', 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] substantially limited the ability of the government to censor "threatening" or "inflammatory" speech.  Brandenburg, a [[Ku Klux Klan]] leader, was convicted of "advocating...violence or other unlawful methods of terrorism" after he gave a speech calling for "revengeance" [sic] on blacks, Jews, immigrants, and other groups.  The Supreme Court overturned his conviction, holding that the statute was unconstitutional under the [[First Amendment]] because "the mere abstract teaching ... of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action" (quoting ''Noto v. United States'', 367 U.S. 290, 297-298 (1961)).  The Court instead created a new test for when the state may punish a person for advocating illegal acts.  The speaker must intend to incite violence, and the speech must be likely to incite immediate or imminent lawless action.   
 
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
 
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
13

edits

Navigation menu