Which case protected radical political speech unless it incites imminent lawless action?

• A. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
• B. Schenck v. United States (1919)
• C. Heller v. District of Columbia (2008)
• D. McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)

Answer: (A)

The key idea is the incitement standard for political speech under the First Amendment. Free speech protects radical or controversial ideas, but it does not allow the government to punish speech that is only provocative unless it is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and likely to produce such action.

Brandenburg v. Ohio sets this standard. The Court held that speech advocating violence or illegal activity is protected unless it is aimed to incite or produce imminent lawless action and is likely to do so. That means merely expressing support for or describing violent acts isn’t punishable unless it’s intended to cause immediate illegal conduct and is likely to cause it.

Schenck v. United States used a different test at the time—“clear and present danger”—which allowed restrictions based on a broader assessment of danger, not the specific imminence requirement established later. The other two cases deal with gun rights and do not address the incitement-to-imminent-lawless-action standard, so they aren’t the right fit for this question.

So the best answer reflects the rule from Brandenburg: radical political speech is protected unless it is directed to and likely to cause imminent lawlessness.