Sedition, Incitement and Prior Restraint Chp.3
Terms in this set (13)
the crime of saying, writing, or doing something that encourages people to disobey their government.
The first Espionage or Sedition Act Case
Schneck v. U.S. in 1919 said it was unconstitutional. When their conviction was reviewed by the Supreme Court, the socialists argued that their speech and leaflets were protected by the First Amendment.
Clear and Present Danger
During 1919, Justice Holmes and Brandeis developed this test in order to determine if speech should be protected by the first amendment.
principle is a test which permits restriction of freedom of speech by government if it is believed that a form of speech has a sole tendency to incite or cause illegal activity. Also the older form of the clear and present danger test.
Brandenburg's 3 prong test
1)Directed and Inciting to producing
2)Imminent lawless action
3)Is likely to incite or produce such action
Teaching Function Speech
Is protected in the realm of abstract advocacy. But not where there is imminent and likely lawless action.
the action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully.
is a threatening communication that can be prosecuted under the law. It is distinct from a threat that is made in jest. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that true threats are not protected under the U.S. Constitution
Judicial suppression of material that would be published or broadcast, on the grounds that it is libelous or harmful. In US law, the First Amendment severely limits the ability of the government to do this.
Near v. Minnesota Lower Court
No reason was given by the government to why the article affected national security except that publication might cause some embarrassment to the publication
Why Near V. Minnesota rejected
national security, control of obscenity. Respondent thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint
Progressive Case Pentagon Paper Ref.
The refusal of the Supreme Court to enjoin the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the contents of a classified historical study of United States decision making in Viet Nam.
Kobe Bryant Case
The District courts order is a prior restraint because it prohibits specific entities possessing the in camera June 21 and June 22 transcripts from revealing the contents.