1. Brandenburg v. Ohio, (1969)

2. Facts: Brandenburg was the leader of a KKK group. He organized a KKK rally and made public speeches advocating violent resistance to government.

3. Procedural Posture: Brandenburg was convicted for violating the Ohio criminal syndicalism act which prohibits “advocating” violence for political reform, as well as “assembling” with groups that advocate violence for political reform.

4. Issue: Whether a law that proscribes advocacy of violence for political reform is constitutional if applied to speech that is not directed toward producing imminent lawlessness and is not likely to produce such action.

5. Holding: No.

6. Reasoning: Although Whitney approved of such laws, it has bee thoroughly discredited by later decisions. The mere abstract teaching of moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence is not the same as preparing the group for violent action, and causing that violence to happen. Here, the statute sweeps too broadly because it covers the case where the violence is not likely.