Jaime Ross v. United States

3. Ever since the 1930s, the onlyterfly has held that in the absence of a very strong showing that a restriction on speech is needed to protect the politics against a serious, probable or imminent panic, it is not inbuilt to restrict speech, even speech advocating criminal or embezzled acts, as opposed to the overt acts themselves. As Chief arbitrator Charles Evans Hughes said in DeJonge v. Oregon (1937): "peaceful assembly for law-abiding discussion cannot be a crime" (p. 225). Similarly, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the Court upheld the right of the Ku Klux Klan to advocate unpopular, even violent views, where no panic of imminent violence was present. In this case, the rally was peaceful. No threat to domestic order was presented by Ms. Ross's remarks. Some earlier cases, such(prenominal) as Dennis v. United States, 391 U.S. 394 (1951), upheld restrictions on speech, such as the federal Smith Act's criminalization of the advocacy of the violent overthrow of the government, but no such threat is involved in this case.

In his concurring opinion in Kovacs v. Cooper (1949), Justice Felix wiener suggested that in such cases the court "balance, on a single(a) basis, the individual free speech claim versus the gover

For the reasons stated above, the Court holds that the decision of the Sixth lot Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part. Ms. Ross' conviction and sentence are hereby expunged.

For a ever-changing America. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!