(1919) pp. 34-39

F: Sent mailings out to people called to military duty telling them to not go.

I: Does the leaflet advocate illegal activity?

H: yes. (i'm not positive -- confusing case)

R: it advocated an illegal activity and it could have an immediate profound effect.

Ru: Clear and Present Danger test, w/4 criteria. The test is replaced by Brandenburg.

1. Likelihood
2. Immenence
3. Severity
4. Intent

(1969) pp. 127-130

F: Brandy leads a KKK group and people don't like that.

I: Is the KKK guilty of criminal syndicalism despite 1st rights?

H: No.

R: The claim would've punished mere advocacy and assembly geared to advocate, not act.

Ru: Quashes Clear & Present, sets up the Brandenburg test. Advocacy is illegal under these circumstances:

1. Such advocacy is inciting or producing imminent, lawless action.
2. Likely to incite or produce such action.
3. Direct advocacy.

(1973) pp. 136-138

F: Hess convicted of Indiana disorderly conduct for speaking at a public demonstration, "we'll take the fuckin' street later."

I: Whether the application of Indiana's disorderly conduct rule (in this case applied to spoken words) violates the 1st Amendment.

H: Yes

R: Government may punish speech only when it incites or produces imminent lawless action, not action at some indefinite future time.

Ru: Spoken words must produce "imminent lawless action", not only a "tendency to lead to violence" in order for the government to punish it.

> Standards set forth in Brandenburg and Yates are at stake
> People with group membership (in groups such as Taliban or al Qaeda) are being held accountable for actions taken by the group
> Imminence could become less important in advocacy cases (for example, say someone said they will attack Chicago next year) and people could be tried for speech without action

(1919) pp. 45-52

F: Abrams and associates distributed 5,000 leaflets criticizing the US government and suggesting its overthrow, during WWI.

I: Whether the Espionage Act of 1917 violates Abram's 1st Amendment right of free speech.

H: No.

R: Under Schenck, the US government may curtail speech about the government during wartime.

Ru: The government may limit free speech if it presents a clear & present danger (such as during times of war).

ABRAMS OVERRULED BY BRANDENBURG.

(1927) pp. 70-74

F: Whitney was a member of the Communist Labor Party of California and was convicted of criminal syndicalism by simply being a memeber of the group.

I: Whether California's criminal syndicalism act violates the 1st Amendment.

H: No.

R: Through the 14th Amendment, the states are able to prohibit some forms of speech if it finds that there is a clear & present danger to society.

Ru: The government may curtail speech when the action constitutes a clear & present danger.

WHITNEY OVERRULED BY BRANDENBURG.

(1971) pp. 105-113

F: The NYT published a story on Vietnam that the govt considered classified. The govt had the story taken out of circulation.

I: Can the US govt censor the press?

H: No.

R: One of the main purposes of the 1st is to keep these avenues open for the press.

(This case is important, but way to obvious. Stupid US govt.)