Difference between revisions of "Brandenburg v. Ohio"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: In ''Brandenburg v. Ohio'', 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a member of the Ku Klux Klan for espousing violence. The Court held that an Oh...) |
FernoKlump (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In ''Brandenburg v. Ohio'', 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] overturned the conviction of a member of the [[Ku Klux Klan]] for espousing violence. The Court held that an Ohio statute restricting speech 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)). | + | In '''''Brandenburg v. Ohio''''', 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] overturned the conviction of a member of the [[Ku Klux Klan]] for espousing violence. The Court held that an Ohio statute restricting speech 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)). |
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
Revision as of 23:13, April 28, 2008
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a member of the Ku Klux Klan for espousing violence. The Court held that an Ohio statute restricting speech 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)).