Did Brandenburg v. Ohio occur prior to Miranda v. Arizona?
Miranda v. Arizona Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) , was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court. In a 5–4 majority, the Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.
Censorship in the United States In general, censorship in the United States, which involves the suppression of speech or public communication, raises issues of freedom of speech, which is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This freedom, though fundamental, has been accompanied with controversy since its enshrinement. For instance, restraints increased during periods of widespread anti-communist sentiment, as exemplified by the hearings of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. According to "Miller v. California" (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court found that the First Amendment's freedom of speech does not apply to obscenity, which can, therefore, legally be censored. While it is legal to express certain forms of hate speech so long as one does not engage in the acts being discussed, or urge others to commit illegal acts, more severe forms have led to people or groups (such as the Ku Klux Klan) being denied certain marching permits or the Westboro Baptist Church being sued, though the initially adverse ruling against the latter was later overturned on appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court.