What is the legal standard that states the First Amendment does not protect speech aimed at inciting lawless action if such action is both imminent and likely?

Question

16-04-2025
Law

College

We appreciate your visit to What is the legal standard that states the First Amendment does not protect speech aimed at inciting lawless action if such action is both imminent. This page offers clear insights and highlights the essential aspects of the topic. Our goal is to provide a helpful and engaging learning experience. Explore the content and find the answers you need!

What is the legal standard that states the First Amendment does not protect speech aimed at inciting lawless action if such action is both imminent and likely?

Answer :

Other Questions

A motorist should know that he/she is entering a work zone because

A researcher designs an intervention to combat homophobia. She also designs a

What are the three types of safeguards laid out under HIPAA regulations?

Coronary Circulation Crossword - Bio 110 Would someone be able to help

A school has the following rules for the grading system: a. Below

A boat floats in water 4.6 m deep. How much time does

What pest do strawberries suffer from and symptoms and control methods?

Convert 24 gallons per hour to liters per minute. There are about

OSHA requires that a standard railing shall consist of a top rail,

Part 1 of 2 The hour and minute hands of the clock

ranatasneem207se ranatasneem207se · Answer 1 · 2023-09-09T18:59:54-04:00

Final answer:

The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites imminent and likely lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio clarified that only direct calls to immediate illegal activity are unconstitutional. The 'clear and present danger' standard from earlier rulings also contributes to understanding when speech may be limited.

Explanation:

The legal standard in question is related to the First Amendment's protection of speech and when such speech may not be protected due to its potential to incite lawless action. Specifically, speech that is aimed at inciting lawless action that is both imminent and likely does not fall under the protective umbrella of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio set the precedent for this understanding, stating that only speech that incites immediate illegal activity is devoid of constitutional protection.

Furthermore, earlier cases such as Schenck v. United States and Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire also help define the boundaries of protected and unprotected speech under clear and present danger and fighting words doctrine, respectively. It is crucial to differentiate between mere advocacy, which is protected, and direct calls for immediate violence or illegal activities, which are not protected.