Exhibit Guide Home Exhibits Introduction Founding Generation Founding Documents You Be the Judge Defining Freedom The Struggle Continues Faces of Freedom Marketplace of Ideas Censorship: What Is It? Musical Hit List Draw the Line Resources Museum Map Glossary

Defining Freedom > Freedom of Speech > Answer to Question 2 It depends. You can believe a revolution is needed and express that belief. But you cannot give a speech that rallies others to take part in an illegal act at a specific time and place.   Speech that advocates violent, illegal action is not protected by the First Amendment. But where does speech cross the line into potential violence and illegal action? It’s something that has been tested before the Supreme Court many times, particularly during war time. Abrams v. United States (1919) Abrams distributed a pamphlet that was critical of the president’s decision to send troops to Russia, urging U.S. workers to strike to prevent ammunition and goods from being manufactured to support the war. Abrams was charged under the 1918 amendments to the Sedition Act, which prohibited disloyalty and interference with the war effort. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the pamphlets had a tendency to encourage resistance to the war and hurt production of goods needed for the war. Dissenting justices Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes felt that necessary intent had not been proven to uphold the conviction. Brandeis and Holmes were the first to weigh whether a person intends to cause disruptive action through their speech. This “necessary intent” played an important role in the Court later developing the imminent threat test in the Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) case. Gitlow v. New York (1925) Socialist Benjamin Gitlow distributed a flyer calling for a rebellion and overthrow of the capitalist system. He was arrested and convicted under New York’s criminal anarchy statute. The Supreme Court upheld Gitlow’s conviction arguing that a state can prohibit speech and publications if it has a tendency to lead to action that endangers public security. Even if the speech doesn’t create an immediate clear and present danger, the state’s law can be upheld if it is reasonable. The Gitlow case is important because it incorporates both the free speech and free press clauses of the First Amendment. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) Chaplinksy had called a city marshal a “God-damned racketeer” and a “damned fascist” in a public place, and was convicted under a state law for violating breach of peace. In Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect “fighting words,” or speech that could cause injury or incite an immediate breach of peace such as a riot. Although the “fighting words” test is rarely used, it has not been overturned by the Court. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) Brandenburg gave a speech at a Ku Klux Klan rally and was arrested under Ohio’s criminal syndicalism statute. The law made it illegal to advocate “crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform," and assembling with others to teach or advocate these ideas. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that although the speech may have advocated violence, it did not call for “imminent lawless action.” The court expanded free speech rights in this case, overturning the Schenck v. U.S. decision, which punished intent to cause disruptive action. As a result of overturning Schenck, “imminent lawless action” is now a standard used in free speech cases. Speech that will cause or potentially incite people to “imminent and lawless action,” such as rioting, is not protected by the First Amendment. Back to Freedom of Speech Questions