Brandenburg v. Ohio case brief summary
395 U.S. 444 (1969)
CASE FACTS
Petitioner was a leader of the Ku Klux Klan and was convicted by the Ohio courts after a television news report was aired broadcasting speeches made by petitioner. He was charged with violating Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2923.13, which made it unlawful, inter alia, to advocate crime or methods of terrorism or to voluntarily assembly with any group to teach or advocate doctrines of syndicalism. His conviction was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Ohio.
DISCUSSION
The judgment finding that petitioner did not present a constitutional issue for appeal, thereby upholding petitioner's conviction under the state's criminal syndicalism statute, was reversed because the statute was declared unconstitutional. The court held that the statute impermissibly reached speech protected by the U.S. Constitutional amends. I and XIV and petitioner's conviction was reversed.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
395 U.S. 444 (1969)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner appealed a judgment from the
Supreme Court of Ohio, which, after finding that petitioner had not
presented a constitutional issue for appeal, upheld petitioner's
conviction under the state's criminal syndicalism statute, Ohio
Rev. Code Ann. § 2923.13.CASE FACTS
Petitioner was a leader of the Ku Klux Klan and was convicted by the Ohio courts after a television news report was aired broadcasting speeches made by petitioner. He was charged with violating Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2923.13, which made it unlawful, inter alia, to advocate crime or methods of terrorism or to voluntarily assembly with any group to teach or advocate doctrines of syndicalism. His conviction was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Ohio.
DISCUSSION
- The United States Supreme Court granted review and concluded that, because Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute did not draw a distinction between teaching the need for force or violence and preparing a group for violent action, the statute unconstitutionally intruded on the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitutional amends. I and XIV.
- As a result, the Court reversed petitioner's conviction because the statute upon which his conviction was based was unconstitutional.
The judgment finding that petitioner did not present a constitutional issue for appeal, thereby upholding petitioner's conviction under the state's criminal syndicalism statute, was reversed because the statute was declared unconstitutional. The court held that the statute impermissibly reached speech protected by the U.S. Constitutional amends. I and XIV and petitioner's conviction was reversed.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment