Write a brief and sammury about These Cases.

Law

There are a plethora of laws that have existed throughout history, all of which have gone a long way in shaping the justice system. There are particular laws in the United States that have caused a controversy in the country, all of which have been of pivotal interest to the world. This study will carry out an analysis on the Abrams versus the United States case and the Brandenburg versus Ohio case. The analysis will involve a brief synopsis of these laws, a summary and a discussion on the important aspects of both cases.

The Abrams versus the United States case

This is a case that occurred in 1919 when the United State's Supreme Court upheld the amendment of the Espionage Act of 1917 in 1918. The Act mainly focused on prohibiting the curtailment of the production of raw materials in their war against Germany since the prohibition was mainly aimed at stopping the war (Schultz & Vile, 2015). The amendment that was implemented in 1918 is mainly referred on a different scale as the Sedition Act of 1918.

The United States was at the time engaged in a war against Germany and in its pursuit of Germany, it decided to deploy some of its marine in the land of Russia. This irked the Russians who were the defendants of the case. A group of some Russian defendants perceived the deployment of the United States marines as one way of suppressing the revolution of the Bolshevik. They therefore made all attempts to frustrate the efforts and the mission of the United States in their attempt to fight the Germans.

This resulted in a conflict between the Americans and the Russians despite the fact that the Americans did not have any grudge with them in the beginning. The grudge began from there prompting the Russians to take some efforts to frustrate what the Americans were doing which consequently angered the Americans. The defendants who were the Russians dropped a number of leaflets and denounced the presidency of Germany militarism and that of the United States, capitalism.

The synopsis

The synopsis of this law pointed to the notion that the constitution is not protected by the constitution especially in a situation where the circumstances that lucidly presents an evil cause. In such a case the congress is mandated with the task of circumventing such an occurrence.

Summary and discussion of the case

At the time during the World War 11, both Russia and the United States were fighting against the Germans. At the time of the war the Bolsheviks came to power and formed a peace agreement with the Germans (Schultz & Vile, 2015). This is when the United States decided to deploy various marines to Russia and this was viewed by the Russians as an attempt to contain the Bolshevik Revolution.

Russia decided to send the first leaflet that denounced the action by the United States as capitalistic and cowardice in nature, while the German regime was referred as Militarism. The second leaflet prompted the workers to wake up and to denounce the military propaganda that they referred as false.

In the case, the Russians who were the defendants were blamed for violating the Espionage Act of 1917. Some of the charges that were brought forth by the United States include the conspiracy by the Russians to stop the production of materials with the sole intention of prohibiting the United States with continuing with their intended war. The other charge was to conspire to encourage, provoke and incite people to resistance the United States.

The issue that was therefore under contest was the argument about whether the United States was permitted under law to convict the defendants for distributing the leaflets. Justice Clark held that the charges were indeed permissible under law on the third and fourth account since the argument by the defendant had been defeated in cases such as Frohwerk versus the United States and in Schenck versus the United States, all of which were debated in 1919.

Justice Holmes however dissented to this arguing that the Congress is only given the right to limit the expression of opinion only if it presents an immediate intent of danger or evil deeds. His argument was therefore that a leaflet alone could not hinder a nation when at war with another nation. This case is mainly devoted to Justice Holmes whose opinion has shaped the modern day jurisprudence of free speech by the Supreme Court.

Brandenburg versus Ohio (1969)

The synopsis of this law is basically that there can be an inhibition on a speech if it is mainly aimed at producing and inciting actions that will instigate lawless action or produce such an action.

Summary and discussion

A law in Ohio stopped the advocacy and teaching of the canons of criminal syndicalism (Russell & Cohn, 2012). The defendant of the case was Brandenburg who was by then the leader of the famous Ku Klux Klan had made a speech that was aimed at revenging against the actions of the government which prompted his conviction under the Law of Ohio.

The Criminal Syndicalism Act of Ohio had made it illegal for any individual to promote violence, crime and sabotage or any means of terrorism as a way of achieving a political or industrial reform. It also prohibited the formation of groups or a society that are aimed at promoting criminal syndicalism. Brandenburg had therefore promoted violence through his speech by inciting people to take vengeful actions against the government if it fails to oppress the white race, which prompted his conviction.

The issue in question therefore was whether or not the statute that prohibited free speech that was tailored towards violent actions, inhibit the defendant's right to free speech which was enshrined in the first and fourth Amendments of the constitution of the United States. It was held that the Act in its attempt to inhibit speeches that may trigger violence failed to unravel whether or not that inhibition would incite more lawlessness. It was therefore argued that this Act was broad and thus violated the First Amendment.

Other judges Justice William Douglas and Justice Hugo concurred with the notion that it was broad and somewhat violated the First Amendment. Brandenburg therefore set a new standard that was to be followed in cases that required the prohibition of speeches that can trigger violence (Russell & Cohn, 2012). The standards include the notion that a speech must advocate for violence in an express way or promote violence that can occur immediately or in a manner that can relate to a violence that can occur imminently. Despite the differences in both cases, they relate in some way and that are some of the most prominent cases that have shaped the American Justice System.

References

Russell, J., & Cohn, R. (2012). Brandenburg v. Ohio. New York, NY: Book on Demand Limited.

Schultz, D., & Vile, J. R. (2015). The Encyclopedia of civil liberties in America. New York, NY: Routledge.