Which case established the standard that speech may be regulated if it incites imminent lawless action?

• A. Schenck v. United States
• B. Brandenburg v. Ohio
• C. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
• D. Reno v. ACLU

Answer: (B)

The key idea is how free speech is limited when it is aimed at causing immediate illegal action. Brandenburg v. Ohio established the standard that government may regulate speech only if it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action. This means mere advocacy or extremist rhetoric is protected unless it is intended and likely to trigger imminent illegal acts. It refined the older approach from Schenck v. United States, which used a broader “clear and present danger” test but didn’t require immediacy and likelihood to the same degree. Other cases like Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (fighting words) and Reno v. ACLU (internet obscenity/timely issues) deal with different aspects of speech, not the incitement standard. So the case that establishes this specific standard is Brandenburg v. Ohio.