E. Dowell, A History of Criminal Syndicalism Legislation in the United States 21 (1939). When Brandenburg’s Klan formed a rally, the man contacted a local news station in Cincinnati and invited the organization to cover the Klan’s rally. Brandenburg, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. Thank you.'
Accordingly, we are here confronted with a statute which, by its own words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action. 395 U.S. 444, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 23 L. Ed. , that a registrant under Selective Service who burned his draft card in protest of the war in Vietnam could be prosecuted.
301 (1927). That means that it can be regulated when it comes to the "plus" or "action" side of the protest.
. Neither the indictment nor the trial judge's instructions to the jury in any way refined the statute's bald definition of the crime 395 U.S. 444. . This filming was broadcasted live to residents of the Ohio city.
-263, we approved the "clear and present danger" test in an elaborate dictum that tightened it and confined it to a narrow category. 315 The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." 'We have never been faithful to the philosophy of that dissent.In that case the prosecution dubbed an agreement to teach the Marxist creed a 'conspiracy.'
No one was present other than the participants and the newsmen who made the film. Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. Appellant, a Ku Klux Klan leader, was convicted under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute for The Klan has more members in the State of Ohio than does any other organization. Statutes affecting the right of assembly, like those touching on freedom of speech, must observe the established distinctions between mere advocacy and incitement to imminent lawless action, for, as Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v.
Whether the war power - the greatest leveler of them all - is adequate to sustain that doctrine is debatable. First, the threats were often loud but always puny and made serious only by judges so wedded to the status quo that critical analysis made them nervous. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Syllabus. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed his conviction.