Editing Constitutional Law Maggs/4th ed. Outline II
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 356: | Line 356: | ||
====Special Categories of Protected Speech==== | ====Special Categories of Protected Speech==== | ||
'''''War and Exigent Circumstances/Incitement of Crime: | '''''War and Exigent Circumstances/Incitement of Crime: Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) '''''Klu Klux Klan member arrested and charges for advocating the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism… | ||
=====The test for Incitement of Crime===== | =====The test for Incitement of Crime===== | ||
is (1) where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or product such action. (A threat of vengeance in the future is not enough.)The mere abstract teaching of a need to resort force or violence is upheld as protected by the First Amendment because this activity is far different from preparing a group for violent action and encouraging it to commit that action. A statute that doesn’t distinguish between these two types of speech is unconstitutional because it is over-inclusive. | is (1) where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or product such action. (A threat of vengeance in the future is not enough.)The mere abstract teaching of a need to resort force or violence is upheld as protected by the First Amendment because this activity is far different from preparing a group for violent action and encouraging it to commit that action. A statute that doesn’t distinguish between these two types of speech is unconstitutional because it is over-inclusive. | ||
Line 451: | Line 451: | ||
=====Other Categories: US v. Stevens (2010)===== | =====Other Categories: US v. Stevens (2010)===== | ||
A federal law that seeks to ban visual and auditory depictions of animal cruelty is overbroad in violation of the first amendment. (It also applied to videos of hunting.) <nowiki>'''''</nowiki> | A federal law that seeks to ban visual and auditory depictions of animal cruelty is overbroad in violation of the first amendment. (It also applied to videos of hunting.) <nowiki>'''''</nowiki> | ||
===FREEDOM OF THE PRESS=== | ===FREEDOM OF THE PRESS=== | ||