Imminent lawless action

Imminent lawless action

Imminent lawless action is a term used in the United States Supreme Court case "Brandenburg v. Ohio" (1969) to define the limits of constitutionally protected speech. The rule overturned the decision of the earlier "Schenck v. United States" (1919), which had established "clear and present danger" as the constitutional limit for speech. Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if it is likely to cause violation of the law more quickly than an officer of the law reasonably can be summoned.

The doctrine states that speech that will cause, or has as its purpose, "imminent lawless action" (such as a riot) does not have constitutional protection. As of 2008, "imminent lawless action" continues to be the test applied in free speech cases.

Quotation

Research Resources

* [http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Brandenburg_v_Ohio First Amendment Library entry on "Brandenburg v. Ohio"]

ee also

* Shouting fire in a crowded theater


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Поможем написать курсовую

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Brandenburg v. Ohio — Supreme Court of the United States Argued February 27, 1969 Decided June 9, 1969 …   Wikipedia

  • Freedom of speech in the United States — is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocation of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public… …   Wikipedia

  • Schenck v. United States — Supreme Court of the United States Argued January 9–10, 1919 Decided March 3 …   Wikipedia

  • Imminence — is the quality of being imminent, i.e. about to happen. Topics where the concept is utilised include: *In law: **Imminent threat, justification for the use of force in international law **Right of self defense for civilians requires a similar… …   Wikipedia

  • Clear and present danger — This article is about the legal concept regarding the government s ability to regulate speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For the novel by Tom Clancy, see Clear and Present Danger. For the feature film, see Clear and… …   Wikipedia

  • First Amendment to the United States Constitution — First Amendment redirects here. For other uses, see First Amendment (disambiguation). United States of America This a …   Wikipedia

  • Texas v. Johnson — SCOTUSCase Litigants=Texas v. Johnson ArgueDate=March 21 ArgueYear=1989 DecideDate=June 21 DecideYear=1989 FullName=Texas v. Gregory Lee Johnson USVol=491 USPage=397 Citation=109 S. Ct. 2533; 105 L. Ed. 2d 342; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 3115; 57 U.S.L.W.… …   Wikipedia

  • Dennis v. United States — Supreme Court of the United States Argued December 4, 1950 Decided June 4, 19 …   Wikipedia

  • Symbolic speech — Symbolic speech, sometimes referred to as symbolic conduct or expressive conduct, is a legal term for an action that expresses an opinion or idea non verbally. Examples of symbolic speech are marching in a parade, burning a flag, or cross burning …   Wikipedia

  • Curley v. NAMBLA — was a wrongful death lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in 2000, by Barbara and Robert Curley against the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
… Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”