Advocating Illegal Action
a)    Branzburg v. Ohio test:  The government can make illegal advocating crime or use of force if:
i)    the advocacy is intended to incite or produce “imminent lawless action” and
ii)    the advocacy is in fact likely to incite or produce imminent lawless action.
b)    Schenck v. US  Clear & Present Danger test (this is the old test that gave rise to Branzburg test)
i)    subjective intent
(1)    does Congress have a right to do what is being advocated against? (draft people)
(2)    does Congress have a right to punish ppl who don’t follow the law? (ppl who don’t report for induction)
ii)    objectively
(1)    is there a clear & present danger that will bring about harm?
(2)    this is a question of proximity and degree
iii)    Dennis  the test is a q. of law for the judge
c)    Abrams:  advocated overthrough of government, but nothing happened (and not likely to happen), so fails objective part of Clear & Present danger test
d)    Whitney:  the solution to bad speech is more speech!
e)    Scales:  there is freedom of association; to be convicted of association, you must be:
i)    a member
ii)    who is active & knowing
iii)    and presently advocates illegal action