Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Brandenburg Vs. Ohio

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 09, 1969

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

77 entries 7 linked 70 unlinked
Show
  1. Bond Vs. Floyd US Supreme Court · Dec 05, 1966
  2. Stromberg Vs. California US Supreme Court · May 18, 1931
  3. Baggett Vs. Bullitt US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1964
  4. Naacp Vs. Alabama US Supreme Court · Jun 08, 1959
  5. Herndon Vs. Lowry US Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1937
  6. United States Vs. Robel US Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1967
  7. United States Vs. Cruikshank US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1875
  8. U.S. 444 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Brandenburg v. Ohio
    Search
  9. U.S. 444 (1969) Brandenburg v. Ohio
    Search
  10. is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Whitney v. California
    Search
  11. the text of which is quite similar to that of the laws of Ohio. Whitney v. California
    Search
  12. and economic change involves such danger to the security of the State that the State may outlaw it. Cf. Fiske v. Kansas
    Search
  13. U. S. 380 (1927). But Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United
    Search
  14. As we Page 395 U. S. 448 said in Noto v. United
    Search
  15. Herndon v. Lowry
    Search
  16. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control. Cf. Yates v. United
    Search
  17. De Jonge v. Oregon
    Search
  18. U. S. 359 (1931). See also United States v. Robel
    Search
  19. Keyishian v. Board
    Search
  20. Aptheker v. Secretary
    Search
  21. Such a statute falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The contrary teaching of Whitney v. California
    Search
  22. and that it had been applied only in conformity with it that this Court sustained the Act's constitutionality. Dennis v. United
    Search
  23. States, 341 U. S. 494 (1951). That this was the basis for Dennis was emphasized in Yates v. United
    Search
  24. permissible limits. The Ohio Supreme Court has considered the statute in only one previous case, State v. Kassay
    Search
  25. between mere advocacy and incitement to imminent lawless action, for, as Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v. Oregon
    Search
  26. United States v. Cruikshank
    Search
  27. Hague v. CIO
    Search
  28. the interpretation of the First Amendment. I join the Court's opinion, which, as I understand it, simply cites Dennis v. United
    Search
  29. by the Congress, not by the Chief Executive. The case was Schenck v. United
    Search
  30. Frohwerk v. United
    Search
  31. Id. at 249 U. S. 209 . Debs v. United
    Search
  32. the Court applied the Schenck doctrine to affirm the convictions of other dissidents in World War I. Abrams v. United
    Search
  33. Id. at 250 U. S. 628 . Another instance was Schaefer v. United
    Search
  34. U. S. 466 , in which Mr. Justice Brandeis, joined by Mr. Justice Holmes, dissented. A third was Pierce v. United
    Search
  35. by argument and discourse ( Pierce v. United
    Search
  36. it is not reconcilable with the First Amendment in days of peace. The Court quite properly overrules Whitney v. California
    Search
  37. test, moved closer to the First Amendment ideal when he said in dissent in Gitlow v. New
    Search
  38. We have never been faithful to the philosophy of that dissent. Page 395 U. S. 453 The Court, in Herndon v. Lowry
    Search
  39. insurrection because of lack of evidence of incitement. Id. at 301 U. S. 259 -261. And see Hartzel v. United
    Search
  40. States, 322 U. S. 680 . In Bridges v. California
    Search
  41. test in an elaborate dictum that tightened it and confined it to a narrow category. But in Dennis v. United
    Search
  42. Id. at 341 U. S. 510 , quoting from United States v. Dennis
    Search
  43. Advocacy and teaching of forcible overthrow of government as an abstract principle is immune from prosecution. Yates v. United
    Search
  44. a guilty knowledge and intent of the aim to overthrow the Government Page 395 U. S. 454 by violence, Noto v. United
    Search
  45. States, 367 U. S. 290 , may be prosecuted. Scales v. United
    Search
  46. of contempt, includes the power to determine which of the two categories fits the particular witness. Barenblatt v. United
    Search
  47. Last Term, the Court held in United States v. O'Brien
    Search
  48. See Bakery Drivers Local v. Wohl
    Search
  49. Giboney v. Empire
    Search
  50. Hughes v. Superior
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial