Case Brief Of Brandenburg V. Ohio

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, in 1969, problems arose when Brandenburg, a leader of a Klu Klux Klan, held a KKK meeting in an Ohio farm. In the convention Brandenburg was filmed as he complained about the United States suppressing the white race. For the most part the film was inaudible but it was certain that Brandenburg had stated some demeaning opinions on African Americans and Jews. In the assembly some Klu Klux Klan members were holding weapons. Though Brandenburg was not, he made it clear that violence would not take place unless it was necessary. As stated by Brandenburg: “...but if our [Congress] continues to suppress the white race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken”. Despite the inclinations towards violence, the law found Brandenburg innocent. The court found that naming

Sheikh Rahman was a leader of his group that people followed. In the New York Bomb Plot, his listeners heard Rahman approve of a violent jihad in a convention before revising with Rahman about the plot. In response, Sheikh Rahman issued a fatwa, a scripture confirming the holiness of an act, endorsing the mission. With the act being blessed, Rahman’s supporters planned to go on with the job shortly before they were caught and arrested. Rahman’s convention speech and fatwa were used in a way to clearly encourage danger that would create illegal actions.
In contrast, The Supreme Court found Brandenburg innocent in the Brandenburg v. Ohio case. After threatening the U.S Government for suppressing the white race, Brandenburg advocated revengeance. His actions and words did not seem to present any specific danger towards the U.S Government because he was only defending the KKK’s position. For this reason, Brandenburg’s beliefs could not be persecuted by the Government and the Court named him not