{"id":54757,"date":"2022-05-05T08:20:39","date_gmt":"2022-05-05T13:20:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/supreme-court-insights\/brandenburg-v-ohio-permissible-restrictions-on-violent-speech.html"},"modified":"2022-05-05T08:20:39","modified_gmt":"2022-05-05T13:20:39","slug":"brandenburg-v-ohio-permissible-restrictions-on-violent-speech","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/supreme-court-insights\/brandenburg-v-ohio-permissible-restrictions-on-violent-speech.html","title":{"rendered":"Brandenburg v. Ohio: Permissible Restrictions on Violent Speech"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n

Brandenburg v. Ohio: Permissible Restrictions on Violent Speech<\/h1>\n
\n
\n By Joseph Fawbush, Esq.<\/a> | Legally reviewed by Laura Temme, Esq.<\/a>\n | Last reviewed\n
\n \n <\/i>\n Legally Reviewed\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Fact-Checked\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors<\/a>. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n<\/section>\n

\n

Americans have the right to free speech under the First Amendment, but that right has exceptions. For example, the First Amendment does not protect speech that seeks to incite immediate violence. But what is the line between inciting violence and stating your opinions forcefully? <\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n\n

The most notable case involving violent rhetoric is\u00a0Brandenburg v. Ohio,\u00a0<\/i>decided in 1969.<\/i>\u00a0Under what has become known as the\u00a0Brandenburg<\/i>\u00a0test, the Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
\r\n<\/div>\r\n

Facts of the Case<\/h2>\r\n

A leader of the Ku Klux Klan made an incendiary speech at a Klan rally. Clarence Brandenburg was 48 when he was captured on camera in 1964 making anti-Semitic and anti-Black remarks. As he was a member of the American Nazi party, this wasn’t particularly surprising. However, Brandenburg also said that while “We’re not a revengent (sic<\/i>) organization . . . 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 (sic<\/i>) taken.<\/p>\r\n

He was prosecuted and convicted for these statements under Ohio’s Criminal Syndicalism law, which prohibited advocating for, among other things, domestic terrorism to accomplish industrial or political goals. Syndicalism refers to a movement for transferring the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution to workers’ unions. Many states passed similar laws in response to global movements advocating for trade unions, communism, and fascism.<\/p>\r\n

Both the state’s Court of Appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court declined to overturn his conviction. The American Civil Liberties Union then took up Brandenburg’s case and appealed it to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a per curiam\u00a0opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court justices agreed that Ohio’s law was unconstitutional and overturned Brandenburg’s conviction.<\/p>\r\n

A Quick Summary of Limitations on the First Amendment<\/h2>\r\n

Brandenburg alleged that Ohio’s Syndicalism law violated his First Amendment rights. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution holds that:<\/p>\r\n

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”<\/p>\r\n

This restriction on prohibiting the freedom of speech applies to the states as well through the Fourteenth Amendment. As such, no state or federal government, or government agency, can restrict the right to free speech. However, the freedoms granted in the First Amendment are not, and have never been, absolute. There are two types of restrictions on speech that courts have held is permissible:<\/p>\r\n