Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
Bradenburg v. Ohio
 | |
| Bradenburg v. Ohio | |
| Reference: 395 U.S. 444 | |
| Term: 1969 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: February 27, 1969 Decided: June 9, 1969 | |
| Outcome | |
| Ohio Supreme Court reversed | |
| Majority | |
| William Brennan • John Harlan • Thurgood Marshall • Potter Stewart • Byron White | |
| Concurring | |
| Hugo Black • William Douglas | |
Bradenburg v. Ohio is a case that was decided on June 9, 1969, by the United States Supreme Court holding that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action. The case concerned Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute because that statute broadly prohibited the advocacy of violence. [1]
Why it matters: The Supreme Court's decision in Bradenburg v. Ohio declared Ohio’s law criminalized "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform" unconstitutional.[2] The court delivered a per curiam majority opinion. The per curiam opinion articulated a new test for judging seditious speech under the First Amendment. To read more about the aftermath of the case, click here.[3]
Background
Clarence Bradenburg was a Ku Klux Klan leader in Ohio contacted a reporter to cover a rally. The state of Ohio passed a syndicalism law in 1919, which prohibited advocating violence and assembling a group to advocate criminal syndicalism. Bradenburg was charged with advocating violence under Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, convicted in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, fined $1,000, and sentenced to one to ten years in prison.[2]
Bradenburg appealed to the Ohio First District Court of Appeal, which affirmed Bradenburg's conviction. The Ohio First District Court issued an opinion rejecting Bradenburg's claim that the state statute violated his First Amendment right to free speech. Bradenburg then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which dismissed his appeal without opinion. Bradenburg appealed to the United States Supreme Court.[2]
Oral argument
Oral argument was held from February 27, 1969. The case was decided on June 9, 1969.[1]
Decision
The Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion that ruled Ohio's criminal syndicalism law unconstitutional, that state laws cannot punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation and that Clarence Bradenburg's conduct was protected speech under the First Amendment, incorporated into the states in the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Black and Douglas later issued separate concurring opinions.[1]
Opinions
| Federalism |
|---|
|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
In Bradenburg v. Ohio the Supreme Court delivered a per curiam opinion which struck down the Ohio state statute and ruled that Bradenburg's speech was constitutionally protected by the First Amendment and incorporated into the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.[2]
Majority opinion
The per curiam opinion articulated a new test for seditious speech under the First Amendment. Bradenburg v. Ohio relied on the clear and present danger test created in Whitney v. California:
| “ | Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.[1][4] | ” |
The per curiam opinion held that speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and it is "likely to incite or produce such action."[3] The per curiam opinion ruled the Ohio syndicalism law unconstitutional because it punished abstract advocacy and teaching. The per curiam opinion ruled the Ohio law unconstitutional because it did not distinguish between speech likely to incite action and speech unlikely to incite violent action. Because the law did not make this distinction, the court ruled that the law led to unconstitutional deprivations of the right to free speech. Therefore, the per curiam opinion struck down the Ohio syndicalism law and ruled in favor of Clarence Bradenburg.
Concurring opinions
Justice Hugo Black filed a brief concurring opinion and said that "the clear and present danger doctrine should have no place in the interpretation of the First Amendment."[1]
Justice William O. Douglas wrote a separate concurring opinion agreeing with Justice Hugo Black, that the clear and present danger test should have no place in First Amendment jurisprudence.
Aftermath
The Bradenburg test remains the standard used for evaluating attempts by the state governments attempting to punish seditious or violent speech. The opinion in Bradenburg v. Ohio has not been challenged since it was issued by the court. The most significant application of the Bradenburg test came in 1973 with the case Hess v. Indiana.[5]
See also
External links
- Full text of case syllabus and opinions (Justia)
- Oyez Supreme Court Resources
- Search Google News for this topic
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Justia, "Brandeburg v. Ohio" accessed June 29, 2022
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Case briefs, Bradenburg v. Ohio, accessed June 29, 2022
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Oyez, Bradenburg v. Ohio accessed August 4, 2022
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ MTSU, Bradenburg v. Ohio accessed August 4, 2022
