Answer :
Final answer:
The suppression of speech advocating imminent lawless action without affecting legitimate political speech is true according to the Brandenburg v. Ohio case. Speech inciting immediate illegal action can be curtailed, while abstract advocacy is protected. The court prefers addressing speech issues after the fact, avoiding prior restraint except in extreme cases.
Hence, the correct answer is option A.
Explanation:
The statement that imminent lawless action can be suppressed through responsible filtering without excluding legitimate political speech is true. In the landmark case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the government can only suppress speech if it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. This decision ensures that while speech that might lead to immediate harm can be curtailed, advocacy in more abstract or hypothetical terms, which does not call for specific and immediate illegal acts, remains under the protection of the First Amendment.
Furthermore, the Court has set strict standards for what constitutes permissible limitations on free speech under the Constitution. A fundamental principle is prior restraint, indicating that government action to prevent speech before it happens is considered unconstitutional except in the most extreme circumstances. Thus, the suppression of speech is a last resort, and the legal preference is to address speech issues with civil or criminal action after the fact.
Conclusively, the framework established by the courts seeks to balance the need for national security and public safety with individuals' rights to free expression. Laws or actions aiming to restrict speech must be narrowly tailored, serving a significant government interest, and must be the least restrictive means necessary to further that interest.
