<P> The Supreme Court has held that `` advocacy of the use of force '' is unprotected when it is `` directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action '' and is `` likely to incite or produce such action '' . In Brandenburg v. Ohio ( 1969 ) , the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for `` advocating ... violence ... as a means of accomplishing political reform '' because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate , or imminent intent to do violence . This rule amended a previous decision of the Court , in Schenck v. United States ( 1919 ) , which simply decided that a `` clear and present danger '' could justify a congressional rule limiting speech . The primary distinction is that the latter test does not criminalize `` mere advocacy '' . </P>
<P> The Supreme Court has held that `` advocacy of the use of force '' is unprotected when it is `` directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action '' and is `` likely to incite or produce such action '' . In Brandenburg v. Ohio ( 1969 ) , the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for `` advocating ... violence ... as a means of accomplishing political reform '' because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate , or imminent intent to do violence . This rule amended a previous decision of the Court , in Schenck v. United States ( 1919 ) , which simply decided that a `` clear and present danger '' could justify a congressional rule limiting speech . The primary distinction is that the latter test does not criminalize `` mere advocacy '' . </P>
what is not a protected form of speech
what is not a protected form of speech
`` advocacy of the use of force ''
`` advocacy of the use of force ''