Brandenburg v. Ohio

Definition

Brandenburg v. Ohio is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1969 that established the standard for protecting free speech under the First Amendment, specifically regarding incitement to violence. This case expanded the protection of speech by ruling that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action. The ruling is significant because it emphasizes the importance of free expression in a democratic society, allowing for robust debate and dissent.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Brandenburg decision reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who was charged under Ohio's criminal syndicalism law for advocating violence.
2. The court ruled that speech can only be restricted if it is aimed at inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce that action.
3. This case replaced the earlier 'clear and present danger' test established in Schenck v. United States with a more protective standard for speech.
4. Brandenburg v. Ohio set a precedent that has been referenced in numerous subsequent cases regarding freedom of speech and incitement.
5. The ruling underscores the principle that free speech is fundamental in a democracy, even if the speech is unpopular or offensive.

Review Questions

• How did Brandenburg v. Ohio change the legal landscape regarding the limits of free speech?
  • Brandenburg v. Ohio shifted the legal standards for limiting free speech by establishing that inflammatory speech could not be punished unless it directly incited imminent lawless action and was likely to produce such action. This change emphasized the importance of protecting even controversial expressions in a democratic society. The ruling moved away from broader restrictions on speech and created a more nuanced framework for assessing when free expression could be lawfully limited.
• Discuss how Brandenburg v. Ohio relates to the First Amendment and its protection of free speech.
  • Brandenburg v. Ohio reinforces the principles enshrined in the First Amendment by prioritizing free speech rights, even when such speech may be deemed offensive or inflammatory. The ruling clarified that government restrictions on speech must meet a high threshold of incitement to imminent lawless action. This decision has become foundational in interpreting the First Amendment, shaping subsequent cases where free expression is at stake.
• Evaluate the implications of the Brandenburg v. Ohio ruling on contemporary debates about hate speech and free expression.
  • The implications of Brandenburg v. Ohio are significant in today's discussions around hate speech and free expression. The ruling establishes a high bar for government intervention in instances of provocative speech, suggesting that only direct calls to imminent violence may warrant restriction. This standard complicates contemporary debates about balancing societal safety with upholding free expression, particularly in cases involving hate groups or extremist rhetoric. The case encourages ongoing discourse about how best to protect democratic values while addressing concerns about public order and safety.

Related terms

First Amendment:

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition, which includes the freedom of speech and press.

Incitement: Incitement refers to speech that encourages or provokes unlawful behavior, particularly violence or illegal acts, and is subject to legal scrutiny.

Clear and Present Danger: A legal standard used to determine when speech can be limited based on whether it presents a clear and present danger of inciting harm or illegal actions.