Brandenburg v. Ohio vs. Schenck: Comparing Free Speech Limits

Question

Hey everyone! 👋 I'm trying to wrap my head around the differences between two really important Supreme Court cases about free speech: *Brandenburg v. Ohio* and *Schenck v. United States*. They both deal with limiting speech, but my textbook makes it sound like they have very distinct standards. Can anyone help clarify how they compare and contrast? It's a bit confusing trying to keep the 'clear and present danger' test separate from 'imminent lawless action'! 😵‍💫

brandi.stanton · Accepted Answer

⚖️ Understanding Brandenburg v. Ohio📅 Establishes the "Imminent Lawless Action" test.🗣️ Speech can only be restricted if it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.⚡️ The speech must be *likely* to incite or produce such action, not just advocate for it.🎯 Overturned the "clear and probable danger" test, setting a higher bar for speech restriction.🛡️ Offers robust protection for political speech, even if it's considered extreme or unpopular.🏞️ This landmark case is central to modern First Amendment jurisprudence.📜 Exploring Schenck v. United States🗓️ Established the "Clear and Present Danger" test during World War I.✉️ Involved Charles Schenck distributing leaflets urging resistance to the WWI draft.🔥 Justice Holmes famously used the analogy of "falsely shouting fire in a theatre" to explain the test.🚫 Speech that posed a significant and immediate threat to national security could be punished.🌍 The context of wartime influenced the Court's more restrictive approach to free speech.📉 Represented a lower standard for restricting speech compared to later rulings.⚖️🆚 Comparing Schenck and Brandenburg: Free Speech TestsFeatureSchenck v. United StatesBrandenburg v. OhioCore TestClear and Present DangerImminent Lawless ActionHistorical ContextWartime (WWI, Espionage Act)Civil Rights Era (KKK rally)Outcome for SpeechMore restrictive; speech could be limited if it created a substantive evil.Highly protective; speech protected unless it directly incites *imminent* lawless action.Incitement StandardSpeech *could* lead to a dangerous outcome.Speech must be *directed to* and *likely to* produce imminent lawless action.Government BurdenLower burden to prove danger.Higher burden to prove both intent and likelihood of incitement.Prevailing Standard?No, largely superseded.Yes, the current prevailing standard for incitement.🧠 Key Takeaways for Free Speech Limits📈 The Supreme Court's interpretation of free speech limits has significantly evolved over time.🛡️ Brandenburg establishes a much higher threshold for the government to restrict speech, protecting a wider range of expression.💡 The "Imminent Lawless Action" test is the cornerstone of modern First Amendment jurisprudence regarding incitement.📜 While historically significant, *Schenck*'s "Clear and Present Danger" test is no longer the primary standard for speech restriction.🗣️ Understanding these cases reveals the dynamic nature of constitutional law and its adaptation to societal changes.🔍 Context plays a vital role; wartime conditions often lead to different judicial interpretations of rights.🌐 These rulings demonstrate the ongoing tension between individual liberties and public safety.

Brandenburg v. Ohio vs. Schenck: Comparing Free Speech Limits

1 Answers

⚖️ Understanding Brandenburg v. Ohio

📜 Exploring Schenck v. United States

⚖️🆚 Comparing Schenck and Brandenburg: Free Speech Tests

🧠 Key Takeaways for Free Speech Limits

Join the discussion

Feature	Schenck v. United States	Brandenburg v. Ohio
Core Test	Clear and Present Danger	Imminent Lawless Action
Historical Context	Wartime (WWI, Espionage Act)	Civil Rights Era (KKK rally)
Outcome for Speech	More restrictive; speech could be limited if it created a substantive evil.	Highly protective; speech protected unless it directly incites imminent lawless action.
Incitement Standard	Speech could lead to a dangerous outcome.	Speech must be directed to and likely to produce imminent lawless action.
Government Burden	Lower burden to prove danger.	Higher burden to prove both intent and likelihood of incitement.
Prevailing Standard?	No, largely superseded.	Yes, the current prevailing standard for incitement.