Brandenberg v. Ohio

A leader of a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) group.

Defendant in Brandenburg v. Ohio

The Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute.

Law used to convict Brandenburg

Reversed Brandenburg's conviction.

Supreme Court's Final Ruling

The Ohio statute was unconstitutional because it punished 'mere advocacy' of violence, which is protected by the First Amendment.

Reason for the Supreme Court's Ruling

A two-part test to determine if speech advocating for violence can be punished.

The Brandenburg Test

The speech must be 'directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.'

First Part of the Brandenburg Test

The speech must be 'likely to incite or produce such action.'

Second Part of the Brandenburg Test

Illegal activity that is about to happen immediately.

Imminent Lawless Action

The difference between mere abstract teaching (advocacy) and preparing a group for violent action (incitement).

Key Distinction made in Brandenburg

Whitney v. California (1927).

Previous Case Overruled by Brandenburg

It was not likely to produce imminent lawless action because it was a small, private rally on a farm.

Why Brandenburg's speech was protected

The First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The constitutional amendments at issue

The action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully.

What is 'incitement'?

Public support for or recommendation of a particular cause or policy, even if it involves violence in the abstract.

What is 'advocacy'?

It significantly expanded protections for political speech by creating a stricter standard for what constitutes incitement to violence.

Significance of Brandenburg v. Ohio

A tendency to inspire violence or illegal action

Which of the following is NOT one of the elements of the Brandenburg test?

Choose from the following options.

 Imminence of violence or illegal action.

 A likelihood of violence or illegal action.

 A tendency to inspire violence or illegal action.

 An intent to incite violence or illegal action.

It is directed to incite imminent lawless action.

According to the Supreme Court’s Brandenburg v. Ohio decision, advocating violent means to effect political change is unlawful only when…

Choose from the following options.

 It is directed to incite imminent lawless action.

 It is done by a large group of people capable of inflicting great harm.

 There are weapons present.

 It is directed at a specific group of people.

 The Ku Klux Klan.

Brandenburg was filmed at a rally of…

Choose from the following options.

 The Ohio Interfaith Council.

 The Ku Klux Klan.

 The Ohio Nazi Party.

 The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

 Constitutional.

In that 1927 decision, the US Supreme Court had said a criminal syndicalism statute similar to Ohio’s was…

Choose from the following options.

 Constitutional.

 Unconstitutional when not criminal action directly results.

 Constitutional but overbroad.

 Unconstitutional.

 He threatened revengence for policies that he thought suppressed the white race.

Which of the following best describes the words or actions that prompted Ohio to prosecute Brandenburg for violating the state’s criminal syndicalism statute?

Choose from the following options.

 He threatened revengence for policies that he thought suppressed the white race.

 Brandenburg and his Klan colleagues burned a cross.

 Brandenburg was accompanied by several Klan members carrying pistols, rifles, and shotguns.

 He and the people around him used racist epithets for blacks and Jews.

Advocacy of violence to bring about industrial or political reform.

Brandenburg was convicted under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism law which prohibited…

Choose from the following options.

 Incitement of racial violence.

 Advocacy of violence to bring about industrial or political reform.

 Advocacy of racist doctrines.

 Committing acts of crime, sabotage, or violence.