In the summer of 1964, Clarence Brandenburg, an Ohio resident and KKK leader, organized a Klan rally where he and other Klan members espoused hate speech against blacks, jews, and others, and the US government for enacting civil rights legislation. Brandenburg was arrested after making calls for a KKK march on Washington DC. Ohio charged him with advocating violence, although he made no specific threats.

In the ensuing case, Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled
That Brandenburg’s comment during the KKK rallies did not suggest that Brandenburg
Or fellow KKK members were about to commit any “imminent lawless action.” Since
Then, Brandenburg has been the litmus test used by law enforcement and the courts
To determine whether or not to arrest individuals speaking or writing inflammatory
Speech.

Identify the constitutional clause that is common in both Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and Schenck v. US (1919).
Based on the Constitutional clause in Part A, explain why the court found differently in Brandenburg than it did in Schenck?
Describe an action that local governments who disagree with the ruling in Brandenburg could take to limit its impact on their communities.