|
|
→Decision: Expand decision section - not imminent, not directed at anyone
|
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
==Decision== |
==Decision== |
||
The Supreme Court reversed Hess's conviction because |
The Supreme Court reversed Hess's conviction because Hess' statement, at worst, "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time." In contrast to such an indefinite future time, the Court emphasized the word ''imminent'' in the "''imminent'' lawless action" test of ''Brandenburg''. Because the evidence did not show that Hess' speech was intended and likelytoproduce "''imminent'' disorder", the state could not punish Hess' speech.<ref>''Hess'', 414 U.S. at 108-109.</ref><ref>{{citation | last = Lynd | first = Staughton | year=1975 | title=Brandenburg v. Ohio: A Speech Test for All Seasons? | journal = University of Chicago Law Review | volume=43 | issue=1 | pp=151-191 | url=https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol43/iss1/22}}</ref> |
||
In addition, Hess' speech was not directed at any particular person or group. As a result, "it cannot be said that he was advocating, in the normal sense, any action." For similar reasons, Hess' speech also could not be considered "[[fighting words]]" under ''[[Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire]]''.<ref>''Hess'', 414 U.S. at 107-109</ref> |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
| Hess v. Indiana | |
|---|---|
| |
| Decided November 19, 1973 | |
| Full case name | Gregory Hess v. State of Indiana |
| Docket no. | 73-5290 |
| Citations | 414 U.S. 105 (more) 94 S. Ct. 326; 38 L. Ed. 2d 303; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 177 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Hess v. State, 260 Ind. 427, 297 N.E.2d 413 (1973) |
| Holding | |
| Hess's language did not fall within any of the "narrowly limited classes of speech" that the States may punish without violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Per curiam | |
| Dissent | Rehnquist, joined by Burger, Blackmun |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I | |
Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case[1] involving the First Amendment that reaffirmed and clarified the imminent lawless action test first articulated in Brandenburg v. Ohio. Hess is still cited by courts to protect speech threatening future lawless action.[2]
The case involved an antiwar protest on the campus of Indiana University Bloomington. Between 100 and 150 protesters were in the streets. The sheriff and his deputies then proceeded to clear the streets of the protestors. As the sheriff was passing Gregory Hess, one of the members of the crowd, Hess uttered, "We'll take the fucking street later" or "We'll take the fucking street again." Hess was convicted in Indiana state court of disorderly conduct.
The Supreme Court reversed Hess's conviction because Hess' statement, at worst, "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time." In contrast to such an indefinite future time, the Court emphasized the word imminent in the "imminent lawless action" test of Brandenburg. Because the evidence did not show that Hess' speech was intended and likely to produce "imminent disorder", the state could not punish Hess' speech.[3][4]
In addition, Hess' speech was not directed at any particular person or group. As a result, "it cannot be said that he was advocating, in the normal sense, any action." For similar reasons, Hess' speech also could not be considered "fighting words" under Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.[5]
