Comm 101 Notes on Schenck Brandenburg

Comm 101 Notes on Schenck Brandenburg - NOTES ON: Schenck...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
NOTES ON : Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47; 39 S.Ct. 247; 63 L.Ed. 470 (1919) -and- Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444; 89 S.Ct. 1827; 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969) We are now moving to the issue of subsequent punishment , that is, when a person may be subject to criminal or civil liability for something that he or she has said (or written). Over the years, the Supreme Court has held that there are certain categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment and that, accordingly, may be punished. These two cases both deal with inciteful speech , speech by which the speaker intends to arouse his or her listeners to take some illegal action. Each of these cases set forth a rule , in the form of a test , for determining when inciteful speech can be punished by criminal sanctions. The Schenck case sets forth the “clear and present danger” test; however, this test was SUPERSEDED by the Court’s decision in Brandenburg, which sets forth a new test. Thus the Schenck “clear and present danger” test is no longer used . You should know
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 3

Comm 101 Notes on Schenck Brandenburg - NOTES ON: Schenck...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online