Talk:Brandenburg v. Ohio

Crime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Freedom of speech High‑importance

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Top‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ohio Mid‑importance

	Ohio portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.OhioWikipedia:WikiProject OhioTemplate:WikiProject OhioOhio articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Is it just me[edit]

Is it just me, or does it seem like way too much legalese in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.15.225 (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump[edit]

Apparently, there was a petition the White House refused to comment on (despite the number of signatures), that used this case as grounds to arrest Trump. Should this be mentioned on this page? Itsjerran (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. We don't have a copy of the petition to which you refer, so the only thing to which we can respond is your post.

Here's how it works.

There is no procedure in the American legal system to "arrest" someone on the "grounds" of a U.S. Supreme Court decision. To arrest someone, you have to have a criminal statute. A court decision is not a criminal statute. You can't make something a crime with a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

The statute that was the subject of the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio was, according to the article, an Ohio criminal syndicalism statute. The statute was ruled to be invalid. Thus, even if Donald Trump had supposedly "violated" this Ohio statute, there would be no legal basis for prosecuting him, since the statute was ruled invalid in this very case.

Further, the fact that someone got some people to sign a petition is not, in and of itself, noteworthy -- nor is the fact that the White House refused to comment on such a petition.

One would also have to question why the White House would be expected to "comment" on such a petition. Was the petition submitted to the White House? If so, why? If someone has violated a criminal statute, there are prescribed legal procedures. Submitting a petition to the White House (or to anyone else) is certainly not a normal legal procedure for reporting an alleged violation of a criminal statute.

In short, you really haven't provided enough information to establish notability. Famspear (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consider Revision: "doubt was cast..."[edit]

The text "doubt was cast on Schenck v. United States (1919),[5] Abrams v. United States (1919),[6] Gitlow v. New York (1925)[7], and Dennis v. United States (1951).[8]" found in the opening paragraph of the page, in my opinion, requires a source to justify the statement that Brandenburg v. Ohio "cast doubt" on the case following.

Parkernm (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]