Question

PLEASE HELP!!!

1. In 1964, Ku Klux Klan leader Clarence Brandenburg gave a speech at a Klan rally in rural Ohio, in which he made general calls for violence against minorities. Part of the rally was caught on film. Brandenburg was charged with violating an Ohio law that prohibited "criminal syndicalism": the advocation of terrorism and other violent acts to bring about social or political change.
Brandenburg was convicted, and his case, Brandenburg v. Ohio, was appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled almost unanimously that the syndicalism law violated Brandenburg's constitutional rights. In its per curiam opinion, the Court stated that Brandenburg could only be convicted of a crime if his speech was likely to cause "imminent" violence, which could not be proved. Because the Ohio law did not distinguish between calls for general violence and calls for imminent violence, the Court declared the law to be too sweeping in scope.
Write a response to each of the following:
A description of which part of the U.S. Constitution was central to both this case, Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), and the earlier case of Schenck v. United States (1919)
An explanation of why, given that both cases concern the same part of the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brandenburg but against Schenck
An opinion of how the Brandenburg case might represent a reinterpretation of the First Amendment since the time of the Schenck case

Answer 1

A. The central part of the U.S. Constitution to both the Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and the earlier case of Schenck v. United States (1919) is the First Amendment. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, religion, and the press, as well as the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government.

B. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brandenburg but against Schenck because of the different interpretations of the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech. In Schenck, the Court held that speech that posed a "clear and present danger" to the nation's security could be regulated, while in Brandenburg, the Court established the "imminent lawless action" test, which only allows speech that incites imminent violence to be regulated. The Court in Brandenburg found that the Ohio law was too broad in scope, as it did not make a distinction between speech that incited violence and speech that only called for violence in general.

C. The Brandenburg case can be seen as a reinterpretation of the First Amendment since the time of the Schenck case. The Court's decision in Brandenburg represents a more protective stance on freedom of speech, as it requires a higher level of evidence to prove that speech is a threat to public order and safety. The "imminent lawless action" test used in Brandenburg provides a more nuanced approach to free speech compared to the "clear and present danger" test used in Schenck. The Brandenburg case is seen as a more narrow interpretation of the First Amendment, which has since been used as a precedent for the protection of free speech in the United States.