In brandenburg v. ohio (1969), the supreme court established the brandenburg test, which states that speech can be prohibited if there was high risk of harm from the speech and if the harm was about to happen or immediate. this reflects a change in which of the following supreme court applications of the first amendment
(a)- clear and present danger
(b)- un-clear and present danager
(c)- none of the above

The answer is a-

Explanation:

The supreme court establishes that free speech can be prohibited when it presents a clear and present danger to the parties involved. For example, If a man delivers a speech, with the intention of gathering men to steal from the rich, he represents a clear danger to society and should  not be allowed to speak. However, the court case stipulated that one speech at the 1964 Klan Rally would incite white people to commit acts of violence against African Americans or jewish people, on the basis of white people being oppressed. However, this speech did pose an imminent threat, since the man merely suggested  that he would incite revengeance against African Americans or Jewish people. This contradicts the First Amendment of the supreme court, which prohibits free speech only if there is a present danger.

yes i would go with c

hope i

-lavira: )