Brandenburg v. Ohio
Court caseWikipedia
6
MENTIONS
6
EPISODES
6
PODCASTS
Search complete. 6 mentions across 6 episodes found for "Brandenburg v. Ohio".
Oct 13, 2026
Corey MillsGUEST
I will say, however, for many people, they talk about the censorship vote that Ilhan Omar had for her truly vile and abhorrent comments that she made about the great and late Charlie Kirk.
Corey MillsGUEST
And these are items that, if you look at the SCOTUS Supreme Court ruling of Brandenburg v. Ohio, where I did go to the parliamentarian or the ethics to see if there was any violations These are things that are protected under first amendment rights, which is why, again, as a constitutionalist, I'm very big on our seven articles, 27 amendments.
Corey MillsGUEST
And I also know that setting the precedence for being able to cause disciplinary actions against someone for what they say will eventually be turned around because we won't hold the House forever.
Corey MillsGUEST
Now, the Immigration and Nationalization Act that she violated with the alleged marriage of her brother, that is something the Republicans could have been going after for years and years.
Herman PoppleberryHOST
Brandenburg.
Herman PoppleberryHOST
Brandenburg v. Ohio, decided June 9, 1969.
Herman PoppleberryHOST
Clarence Brandenburg was a Klan leader.
Herman PoppleberryHOST
He was filmed at a rally in 1964, men in robes and hoods, some armed, a cross burning.
Samantha BarbasGUEST
Therefore, there should be no constitutional issue with it.
Samantha BarbasGUEST
And technically, Beauharnais is still good law in the sense that it hasn't formally been overruled, but subsequent cases like New York Times v. Sullivan, Brandenburg v. Ohio, RAV v.
Samantha BarbasGUEST
City of St. Paul have effectively nullified Beauharnais.
Samantha BarbasGUEST
It would be very hard to use that case as a basis for a hate speech law today.
Emily GlanklerHOST
Like, in 1969, the Liberal Supreme Court sided with a Ku Klux Klan leader who was arrested for a speech at a Klan rally.
Emily GlanklerHOST
Moving beyond the old clear and present danger test from 1920, Brandenburg v. Ohio asserted that speech could only be limited if two things were true.
Emily GlanklerHOST
Was the speech directed at inciting or producing imminent, flawless action? And was it likely to incite or produce such action? So making a speech or publishing an article that says you hate a group of people, even that you think they should not be alive, is protected, like the privately owned newspaper or social media site can decide not to publish it, but the government can't.
Emily GlanklerHOST
Now, if you went further and then told people how and when they should attack that specific group and people listened to you, well, then you might have a problem.
Michael ZeldinHOST
Tupac is born a month after the trial, and anyone who has access to trial transcripts should read Afeni Shakur's closing argument where she lays out the difference between speech and action.
Michael ZeldinHOST
Brandenburg v. Ohio, the famous case that this point, is issued the same year that Afani recognizes that there is a difference between talk and action.
Michael ZeldinHOST
So Tupac is born.
Michael ZeldinHOST
They live a very political life in New York, working at Lincoln Detox, which is a program for heroin addicts.
Samantha BarbasGUEST
Therefore, there should be no constitutional issue with it.
Samantha BarbasGUEST
And technically, Beauharnais is still good law in the sense that it hasn't formally been overruled, but subsequent cases like New York Times v. Sullivan, Brandenburg v. Ohio, RAV v.
Samantha BarbasGUEST
City of St. Paul have effectively nullified Beauharnais.
Samantha BarbasGUEST
It would be very hard to use that case as a basis for a hate speech law today.