Brandenburg Vs Ohio Essay
Brandenburg v. Ohio (No.492)
Issue
Brandenburg was a leader of the Ku Klux Klan. He had made a speech that promoted revenge against the government. This occurred when Brandenburg called a reporter at the Ohio TV station to attend his meeting, and to film and broadcast his event on the local station. As a result, in the video was scattered phrase that was derogatory to Negroes and Jews, so Brandenburg was convicted. However, Brandenburg brought his case challenging his constitutionality of the criminal syndicalism statute under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed his appeal "for the reason that no substantial constitutional question exists herein." The court didn’t file an opinion, so the appeal was later taken to the Supreme Court for notable jurisdiction.
Did Brandenburg speech advocates violence or did the law protect certain violence activities under the First Amendment?
Did Ohio’s criminal syndicalism law violate Brandenburg’s right to free speech? Or is it illegal to broadcast hate speech on television?
Rule The constitution principle explained that “free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation, except where such advocacy is directed to …show more content…
They believed that this doctrine has no place in the interpretation of the First Amendment. Meanwhile, Justice Douglas argues that how this doctrine applied was weak and perverted. The Court’s Per Curiam held that Ohio law violated Brandenburg’s free speech right. The court evaluated this by mean of the "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and "likely to incite or produce such action”. With that said, the failure to do this rendered the law as overly broad; and is in violation of the
Issue
Brandenburg was a leader of the Ku Klux Klan. He had made a speech that promoted revenge against the government. This occurred when Brandenburg called a reporter at the Ohio TV station to attend his meeting, and to film and broadcast his event on the local station. As a result, in the video was scattered phrase that was derogatory to Negroes and Jews, so Brandenburg was convicted. However, Brandenburg brought his case challenging his constitutionality of the criminal syndicalism statute under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed his appeal "for the reason that no substantial constitutional question exists herein." The court didn’t file an opinion, so the appeal was later taken to the Supreme Court for notable jurisdiction.
Did Brandenburg speech advocates violence or did the law protect certain violence activities under the First Amendment?
Did Ohio’s criminal syndicalism law violate Brandenburg’s right to free speech? Or is it illegal to broadcast hate speech on television?
Rule The constitution principle explained that “free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation, except where such advocacy is directed to …show more content…
They believed that this doctrine has no place in the interpretation of the First Amendment. Meanwhile, Justice Douglas argues that how this doctrine applied was weak and perverted. The Court’s Per Curiam held that Ohio law violated Brandenburg’s free speech right. The court evaluated this by mean of the "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and "likely to incite or produce such action”. With that said, the failure to do this rendered the law as overly broad; and is in violation of the