BRANDENBURG brief
Michael Broussard
CMST 431-01
Case Brief #1
BRANDENBURG v. OHIO, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
The appellant was convicted by the Ohio criminal syndicalism for statue Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 2923.13. The appellant challenged the constitutionalism of his conviction in intermediate appellate court of Ohio, but the affirmed his conviction. The supreme court of Ohio dismissed his appeal.
The appellant, a leader of the Ku Klux Klan , invited media coverage to an event held at a farm in which he was speaking. The event was filmed and reported and later broadcasted on local and national medias. During the rally the speaker was filmed making a speech and wearing a red hood. There were 12 members wearing hoods, some carrying firearms, who surrounded and burned a large wooden cross.
The appellant’s speech included phrases such as “We're not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.” The appellant was not seen handling firearms. The film did capture many phrases of racist and violent remarks.
Does the individual who makes suggest full threatening remarks protected under the first amendment if those remarks do not incite a violent reaction?
The court overruled the decision because the statue falls with the confines of the first and fourteenth amendment.
The court referenced Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290, 297 -298 (1961), "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." The Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act does not meet the standards of this decision and thus is in violation. The act punishes those who teach violence as a means of accomplishing reform. The justices made it clear that there needs to be “clear and present danger” when referring to laws regarding the interference of
CMST 431-01
Case Brief #1
BRANDENBURG v. OHIO, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
The appellant was convicted by the Ohio criminal syndicalism for statue Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 2923.13. The appellant challenged the constitutionalism of his conviction in intermediate appellate court of Ohio, but the affirmed his conviction. The supreme court of Ohio dismissed his appeal.
The appellant, a leader of the Ku Klux Klan , invited media coverage to an event held at a farm in which he was speaking. The event was filmed and reported and later broadcasted on local and national medias. During the rally the speaker was filmed making a speech and wearing a red hood. There were 12 members wearing hoods, some carrying firearms, who surrounded and burned a large wooden cross.
The appellant’s speech included phrases such as “We're not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.” The appellant was not seen handling firearms. The film did capture many phrases of racist and violent remarks.
Does the individual who makes suggest full threatening remarks protected under the first amendment if those remarks do not incite a violent reaction?
The court overruled the decision because the statue falls with the confines of the first and fourteenth amendment.
The court referenced Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290, 297 -298 (1961), "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." The Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act does not meet the standards of this decision and thus is in violation. The act punishes those who teach violence as a means of accomplishing reform. The justices made it clear that there needs to be “clear and present danger” when referring to laws regarding the interference of