When Clarence Brandenburg vacated the street at a Ku Klux Klan cross-burning rally as ordered but threatened to reoccupy it later, the Supreme Court overturned his conviction by arguing that government can only restrict speech when it

• A. Presents a clear and present danger
• B. Incites an 'imminent' lawless action
• C. Is against the ruling political party
• D. Is against law enforcement officers

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that speech can be limited only when it is aimed at inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce that action. This is the standard set by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which replaced the older “clear and present danger” test. In this scenario, vacating the street but threatening to reoccupy it later shows intent to influence behavior in the future, not to trigger immediate illegal action. The threat isn’t urging people to act now, so it doesn’t meet the imminent action standard. Therefore, the conviction is overturned because protected speech includes advocacy or exhortation about political topics unless it is directed at producing imminent lawless action. The other options don’t fit because restricting speech on the grounds of danger, party affiliation, or confrontations with law enforcement does not capture the immediacy and likelihood requirement central to Brandenburg.