Procedures

• STEP 1:

  As a class, view the following videos and engage in class discussion to provide context for this case and its connection with the First Amendment. Use the accompanying questions as a guide.

  HANDOUT: Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) (Google Doc)

• VIDEO CLIP 1: Background (5:31)

  • What were the criminal syndicalism laws?

  • Explain the significance of Schenck v United States.

• VIDEO CLIP 2: Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Statute (4:15)

  • Explain the application of the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Statute to various groups.

  • Describe the societal attitude regarding the Ku Klux Klan at the time.

• VIDEO CLIP 3: Case Timeline (1:49)

  • Who was Clarence Brandenburg?

  • Explain the timeline of this case.

  • Why was it significant that this event occurred on private property?

• VIDEO CLIP 4: Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (1:44)

  • Describe Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton's perspective on this case.

• STEP 2:

  View this collection of videos to learn about the makeup of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional arguments, and the decision in this case.

• VIDEO CLIP 5: The Supreme Court (5:07)

  • Describe the makeup of the Supreme Court during this time.

  • Explain Justice Black's history with the Ku Klux Klan and his perspective on equal rights and free speech.

• VIDEO CLIP 6: Oral Arguments (6:50)

  • Explain Allen Brown's argument for Clarence Brandenburg before the Supreme Court.

  • Explain Leonard Kirschner's argument for the prosecution.

• VIDEO CLIP 7: The Decision (1:20)

  • Explain the Court's decision and the three elements of the Brandenburg test that resulted from this case as discussed by Katie Fallow.

• Compare and contrast the Constitutional arguments made in Brandenburg v. Ohio to those in the following Supreme Court Case:

  Landmark Supreme Court Case: Schenck v United States

  Schenck v United States helped define the limits of the First Amendment right to free speech, particularly during wartime. It created the “clear and present danger” standard, which explains when the consequences of speech allow the government to limit it.

  In this case, the Court chose to unanimously uphold activist Charles Schenck’s conviction after he distributed leaflets urging young men to resist the draft during World War I.