Literature Study GuidesBrandenburg V Ohio

Brandenburg v. Ohio | Study Guide

United States Supreme Court

Download a PDF to print or study offline.

Study Guide
Cite This Study Guide

How to Cite This Study Guide

quotation mark graphic
MLA

Bibliography

Course Hero. "Brandenburg v. Ohio Study Guide." Course Hero. 24 June 2019. Web. 16 July 2019. <https://www.coursehero.com/lit/Brandenburg-v-Ohio/>.

In text

(Course Hero)

APA

Bibliography

Course Hero. (2019, June 24). Brandenburg v. Ohio Study Guide. In Course Hero. Retrieved July 16, 2019, from https://www.coursehero.com/lit/Brandenburg-v-Ohio/

In text

(Course Hero, 2019)

Chicago

Bibliography

Course Hero. "Brandenburg v. Ohio Study Guide." June 24, 2019. Accessed July 16, 2019. https://www.coursehero.com/lit/Brandenburg-v-Ohio/.

Footnote

Course Hero, "Brandenburg v. Ohio Study Guide," June 24, 2019, accessed July 16, 2019, https://www.coursehero.com/lit/Brandenburg-v-Ohio/.

Overview

Author

United States Supreme Court

Year Decided

1969

Type

Primary Source

Genre

U.S. Supreme Court Case

At a Glance

  • Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader in Ohio, spoke at a small rally in 1964.
  • The rally participants wore hoods and burned a cross; some carried weapons.
  • Brandenburg made racist remarks and spoke of revenge for offences against whites.
  • He expressed anger at President Lyndon B. Johnson (1908-1973), Congress, and the Supreme Court and discussed plans to march on Washington, D.C., Florida, and Mississippi.
  • He was convicted of advocating violence and assembling for the purpose of violent political reform, which violated the Ohio criminal syndicalism statute, a law prohibiting actions that seek to encourage illegal behavior and violence.
  • The Supreme Court's ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio focused on the difference between speech that defends or argues for violence and speech that actually leads to illegal activity.
  • The court ruled that Brandenburg's right to free speech had been violated and that the Ohio criminal syndicalism statute was unconstitutional.
  • In his concurrence, Justice William O. Douglas (1898–1980) discredited the longstanding "clear and present danger" test for the restriction of free speech.
  • Douglas described how the "clear and present danger" test gave prosecutors too much power to define whether a person's expression of thoughts and beliefs includes harmful intentions.
  • In place of "clear and present danger," the court established a new test for determining when inflammatory speech may be prohibited. The Brandenburg Test requires that speech both incite and likely produce "imminent lawless action." The test is the case's best-known legacy.

Summary

This study guide for United States Supreme Court's Brandenburg v. Ohio offers summary and analysis on themes, symbols, and other literary devices found in the text. Explore Course Hero's library of literature materials, including documents and Q&A pairs.

Buy this book from Amazon.com
Cite This Study Guide

information icon Have study documents to share about Brandenburg v. Ohio? Upload them to earn free Course Hero access!