You probably think the First Amendment gives you a blanket right to say whatever you want. It doesn’t. Not exactly. But the reason you aren’t in jail right now for that spicy political rant you posted last night is almost entirely due to a 1969 Supreme Court case called Brandenburg v Ohio.
It’s a weird one. Honestly, the facts of the case are pretty gross. We’re talking about Clarence Brandenburg, a small-time Ku Klux Klan leader in rural Ohio. He invited a local news station to film a rally. There were hoods. There were crosses burning. There was a lot of hateful, rambling speech about "revengeance" against the government, Black Americans, and Jewish people. Ohio authorities arrested him under a "criminal syndicalism" law. They basically said, "You can't advocate for violence to achieve political reform."
Brandenburg was fined $1,000 and sentenced to one to ten years in prison. But then the Supreme Court stepped in and changed the rules of American free speech forever.
The Old Rules Were Basically Useless
Before Brandenburg v Ohio 1969, the government had a much easier time shutting people up. Back in the early 20th century, the standard was the "clear and present danger" test. This came from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States. You’ve heard the "fire in a crowded theater" line? That’s from Schenck.
The problem was that the government used "clear and present danger" to arrest anyone they didn't like. Anti-war protesters? Jail. Socialists? Jail. The court eventually shifted to a "bad tendency" test, which was even worse. If your speech might lead to something bad eventually, the cops could swoop in.
By the time we got to the late 60s, the country was a mess. Protests were everywhere. The Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War had everyone on edge. The legal system needed a clear line. It found that line in the most unlikely place: a KKK rally in a Hamilton County field.
The Brandenburg Test: The Three Pillars of Free Speech
When the Supreme Court overturned Brandenburg’s conviction, they didn't just say he was innocent. They threw out the old rules and replaced them with the "Imminent Lawless Action" test. This is the gold standard. To this day, if the government wants to punish you for "inciting" something, they have to prove three specific things.
👉 See also: Why the Recent Snowfall Western New York State Emergency Was Different
First, there is Intent. The speaker has to actually intend to incite violence or lawbreaking. If you’re just venting or being a hyperbolic idiot, that’s usually protected.
Second—and this is the big one—is Imminence. The violence has to be about to happen right now. Telling a crowd to "go burn down that building across the street at 2:00 PM" is incitement. Telling a crowd that "one day, the people will rise up and reclaim their rights" is just political rhetoric. The gap in time matters.
Third is Likelihood. Is the speech actually going to produce action? If a random guy stands on a soapbox in an empty park and screams for a revolution, no one is going to do anything. It's not "likely" to cause lawless action. Therefore, it's protected.
Why We Protect Hateful Speech
It feels wrong. People often ask, "Why do we let the Klan or Nazis march?" The answer isn't that the government likes them. It’s that we don't trust the government to decide who the "bad guys" are.
If the government had the power to silence Clarence Brandenburg because his ideas were hateful, they would have used that same power to silence Martin Luther King Jr. In fact, they tried. Throughout the 50s and 60s, Southern states used "disturbing the peace" and "incitement" laws to lock up civil rights organizers.
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969 created a shield. By making the standard so incredibly high—requiring "imminent lawless action"—the Court ensured that the government couldn't use "safety" as an excuse to crush political dissent. It’s a messy, uncomfortable trade-off. To protect the speech we love, we have to protect the speech we loathe.
✨ Don't miss: Nate Silver Trump Approval Rating: Why the 2026 Numbers Look So Different
The Modern Internet Battleground
Fast forward to today. Social media has completely warped how we think about "imminence." If I post something that goes viral and inspires someone three states away to commit a crime two days later, is that imminent?
Most legal experts, like Ken White (the "Popehat" blogger and First Amendment lawyer), argue that the Brandenburg standard still holds up remarkably well. Even in the digital age, the distance between words and deeds is usually wide enough to protect the speaker.
However, we are seeing cracks. Cases involving "True Threats" (like Elonis v. United States) and the rise of "doxing" are pushing the limits of what the First Amendment covers. But every time a prosecutor tries to go after someone for a "dangerous" tweet, they run head-first into the ghost of Clarence Brandenburg.
Real-World Examples of the Brandenburg Shield
Think about the January 6th Capitol riots. This is the most recent and high-profile test of Brandenburg v Ohio 1969. When Donald Trump told his supporters to "fight like hell," was that incitement?
Under the Brandenburg test, it’s a tough sell for a prosecutor. You have to prove he intended for them to break the law at that exact moment, and that his words were the direct trigger. This is why many of the legal challenges against him have focused on different statutes, like conspiracy or obstruction, rather than pure "incitement of a riot." The Brandenburg bar is just that high.
Another example is the 1977 Skokie case (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie). A group of neo-Nazis wanted to march through a town with a high population of Holocaust survivors. The town tried to stop them, claiming it would cause emotional trauma and potential violence. The courts, citing Brandenburg, ruled the march could proceed. If there's no "imminent lawless action," the speech stays.
🔗 Read more: Weather Forecast Lockport NY: Why Today’s Snow Isn’t Just Hype
What Most People Get Wrong
The biggest misconception is that the First Amendment applies to private companies. It doesn't.
If X (formerly Twitter) or Facebook bans you for "incitement," they aren't violating your Brandenburg rights. Brandenburg limits the government. It stops the police from knocking on your door. It doesn't stop a moderator from hitting the delete button.
Also, Brandenburg doesn't protect "solicitation." You can’t hire a hitman and claim it was "free speech." You can’t provide "material support" to terrorists and call it an "expression of ideas." There are limits. But for 99% of political speech, Brandenburg is the bodyguard.
Actionable Insights for the Modern Citizen
Understanding your rights keeps you out of trouble and helps you spot when the government is overstepping. Here is how to apply the lessons of Brandenburg v Ohio 1969 in your life:
- Know the Line: You can be as angry as you want about the government, the tax code, or your local school board. As long as you aren't calling for immediate physical violence or lawbreaking, you are on solid legal ground.
- Context is King: The same words spoken at a peaceful rally vs. a rowdy mob outside a courthouse carry different legal weights. "Imminence" is a vibes-based legal standard that depends on the environment.
- Support Free Speech Orgs: Groups like the ACLU (who actually defended Brandenburg) and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) spend millions defending this specific precedent. Even when the speaker is a "bad guy," the precedent they protect is yours.
- Document Overreach: If you see local ordinances trying to ban "offensive" or "harmful" speech, check if they bypass the Brandenburg test. Often, city councils pass laws that are blatantly unconstitutional because they haven't updated their playbooks since 1968.
The legacy of Brandenburg v Ohio 1969 is that in America, we punish deeds, not thoughts. We wait for the first stone to be thrown rather than arresting the person who said stones are a good idea. It's a dangerous way to run a country. It’s also the only way to be truly free.
Next Steps for Deep Diving into Constitutional Law
To truly grasp how these protections work in the real world, you should read the actual per curiam opinion of the Court. It’s surprisingly short. Afterward, look into the "Hess v. Indiana" (1973) case, which clarified that saying "We'll take the streets later" is not enough to get you arrested. Understanding the timeline of these cases shows exactly how the Supreme Court moved from a "protect the state" mindset to a "protect the speaker" mindset over the last century.