After the Smith Act and the Alien/Sedition Acts, there have been reasons for many people who are dissenters of politics. However, with the increase in liberal policy and violent outbreaks in the civil rights era, there were policies that were being created to protect people of hateful speech. The Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act was designed to prohibit speech that would advocate "crime, sabotage, violence," etc. This bill hoped to protect the safety of the people of Ohio. What actually happened was something no one could have anticipated.
Brandenburg was a man who led a group of Ku Klux Klan, led a rally in Ohio in the late 60s and spoke at his rally, advocating to take vengeance against the government in Ohio. Following this, Brandenburg was arrested by the police by violating the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act. This case eventually reached the Supreme Court and there was a proposition that the Court was finally able to address: what did incitement of violence actually mean? If so, that would mean that Ohio violated the free speech rights of the KKK member.
The Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY ruled on June 9th, 1969 in favor of Brandenburg and determined that Brandenburg had his free speech rights violated by the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act. They saw this law as unconstitutional because they were unable to clearly define and distinguish between speech that actually was directly inciting violence and teaching such ideologies that could lead to violence. If the law couldn't actually do this "strict scrutiny" test effectively, then the law was unconstitutional and violated the rights of Ohio citizens by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
At a time when it was unpopular for liberals to nationally support groups such as the KKK, the Supreme Court in one of its most liberal constructions, didn't shy away from protecting the political speech rights of all Americans. By choosing to set a precedent to protect any political speech that didn't directly incite violence, it opened the door for legal protests that took place in places like Charlottesville. Although these protests have resulted in violence, this protest of not directly being done to incite violence has allowed protests like these to exist and continue to thrive. Even in California, there have been a few protests in the past few months by the KKK, but it is crucial to remember that those rights that are protected for the KKK to protest is what allowed protest for Black Lives Matter and the Women's March to exist.
Sources:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492
https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-stone/freedom-of-expression/brandenburg-v-ohio-2/
https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/brandenburg-v-ohio/
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-far-right-california-20170818-story.html
I was shocked to learn that the famously liberal Warren Court would ever rule in favor of the KKK. Something I wonder is whether Hugo Black faced any public negativity for ruling in Brandenburg's favor considering his history with the KKK. While I find it crazy protecting the rights of the KKK to demonstrate as free speech, ACLU stated after the Charlottesville incident that we must protect the free speech of hate groups so that there is a precedent of free speech for everyone that can never be taken away. https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/equality-justice-and-first-amendment
ReplyDelete