Pennsylvania
How Brandenburg v. Ohio applies in Pennsylvania: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Constitutional Law.
In Pennsylvania, the principles established in Brandenburg v. Ohio regarding limits on free speech are applied within the context of state protection for free expression. The state upholds a high threshold for prosecution of speech that may incite violence, conforming to the Supreme Court’s emphasis on protecting even unpopular speech.
In Pennsylvania, speech that incites imminent lawless action is not protected by the First Amendment, maintaining a threshold of clear and present danger and direct incitement as established in Brandenburg.
The court held that speech inciting imminent violence must contain a true threat to be considered unprotected under Pennsylvania law.
The court ruled that mere advocacy for illegal conduct does not suffice as incitement unless it poses a clear and present danger or is likely to produce imminent lawless action.
The ruling emphasized that political speech, even if provocative, is still protected unless it expressly incites imminent violence.
Pennsylvania's approach closely mirrors the federal standard set in Brandenburg v. Ohio, maintaining that incitement must lead to imminent lawless action. However, state courts have occasionally offered broader protection for non-violent political expression than some federal interpretations.
Brandenburg's principles are often tested on the Pennsylvania bar exam, particularly regarding the nuances of protected speech versus incitement, making it vital for candidates to grasp these distinctions.