1. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) Government can forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation only where such advocacy is: (1) directed to inciting/producing imminent lawless action, & (2) likely to incite or produce such action. 5 basic requirements 1) Intent to cause harm 2) Express advocacy of harm 3) Harm caused must be illegal 4) Harm caused must be imminent 5) Advocacy must be likely to cause harm

2. Possible Criticisms of Brandenburg  Does Brandenburg still fall short of protecting speech?  Douglas concurrence – appropriate line re punishment is between ideas & overt acts  Does Brandenburg protect too much speech?

3. Extending Brandenburg - Hustler & Incitement to Suicide Can the teenage boy’s mother sue Hustler for incitement to suicide or should Hustler be able to raise Brandenburg as a 1 st Amendment defense? What aspects of the Brandenburg requirements are missing? Does one even need to rely on Brandenburg to avoid Hustler’s liability here?

4. Extending Brandenburg – Hitman scenario Paladin Enterprises published Hitman, which gave explicit and detailed instructions on how to solicit, prepare for, and commit murders without being caught. Several months after publication, Perry murdered a woman and her two children. Perry was solicited to do so by the victims’ husband/father. Perry meticulously followed the directions in the book Hitman, which was found in his apartment at the time of his arrest. Victims’ estate sued Paladin Enterprises for wrongful death, alleging that the publisher aided and abetted Perry in the murders. Aiding & abetting: To somehow assist in the commission of a crime, or be an accomplice. A plan to commit a crime or acts, the probable consequences of which are criminal. Solicitation: A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission, he commands, encourages or requests another to engage in specific conduct that would constitute such crime or an attempt to commit such crime or which would establish his complicity in its commission or attempted commission.

5. Brandenburg and Provision of Information If Brandenburg applies, are any of its elements met? intent, express advocacy, illegal harm, likely to result, imminently Does it matter if Brandenburg elements are missing – should we apply Brandenburg to this scenario? Does the form of the speech (i.e., provision of information vs. advocacy) affect your determination as to whether the speech is protected or not? Do you reach different conclusions in Hitman/Ellen Gates scenarios? If so, why?