Answer :
Final answer:
The First Amendment protects advocacy of law violation except when it incites imminent lawless action likely to occur immediately. The 'imminent lawless action' standard from Brandenburg v. Ohio and the 'clear and present danger' test from Schenck v. United States draw lines between protected and unprotected speech. These standards aim to balance free speech with public safety and order.
Explanation:
Imminent Action and the First Amendment
Within the context of First Amendment protections, cases where speech advocates for unlawful or lawless behavior require the application of the imminent lawless action standard. This standard was solidified in the landmark decision of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), where the Supreme Court clarified that the First Amendment protects advocacy of force or law violation unless it incites or produces imminent lawless actions that are likely to occur. For instance, speech that includes threats to assassinate a figure or calls for riots is unprotected if those actions are impending and likely to happen as a result. In contrast, general advocacy of violence without immediate incitement is not punishable under this standard.
Moreover, the clear and present danger test, originating from Schenck v. United States (1919), has historically provided a framework for evaluating when speech may be restricted. Speech that presents a clear and immediate threat to national security or public safety, such as interfering with military recruitment during wartime, can be deemed unprotected. However, this doctrine has been somewhat superseded by the imminent lawless action test but still holds conceptual significance.
Further considerations into First Amendment protections cover the scope of acceptable speech in various contexts, such as schools or religious practices, and the delineation of what constitutes 'fighting words,' which can provoke immediate violence and thus are not protected under Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). Likewise, artistic expressions, including motion pictures, are afforded protection as seen in Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952).
