Brandenburg v. Ohio · ¶12

I agree with the views expressed by Mr. Justice Douglas in his concurring opinion in this case that the “clear and present danger” doctrine should have no place in the interpretation of the First Amendment. I join the Court’s opinion, which, as I understand it, simply cites Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494 (1951), but does not indicate any agreement on the Court’s part with the “clear and present danger” doctrine on which Dennis purported to rely.

U. S. Reports, bound volume
U. S. Reports, volume 395, at 444 (Library of Congress) · transcription: Caselaw Access Project
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.