Constitutional Law Practice Essay 1 Answer
Constitutional Law Practice Essay 1 Answer
The first issue is whether Anti-Tax can be convicted under the Sedition Statute, or his
Under the clear and present danger test, a state cannot prohibit advocating the use of
force or of law violation unless such advocacy (i) is directed to producing or inciting imminent
Here, Anti-Tax made two statements. The first statement, Anti-Tax calls on the viewers
to not to pay for the proposed tax increase, even though this statement satisfies the incitement
to make a lawless action requirement, the action is not imminent because the proposed tax law
had not been enacted, and it is uncertain if the tax law will ever be passed. The second Anti-
Tax’s statement, exhorts the viewers to make Tax pay up and show him what a taking really
means, it is likely to satisfy the clear and present danger test, because it incites the viewers to
make a lawless action, combined with the fact that Anti-Tax gave Tax’s address, it creates a
sense that the lawless actions are going to imminently occur, and the fact that an unknown
arsonist started a fire that destroyed Tax’s home, shows that Anti-Tax’s words led a viewer to
burn Tax’s house down. Therefore, Anti-Tax cannot be convicted for his statement calling to not
to pay the tax increase, because it is a protected speech, but it is likely to be convicted for his
Statute”.
Here, the “Abusive Words Statute” punish “directing any abusive word or term at another”, the
statute is too broad, and punishing language that is simply vulgar or abusive will reach
protected speech. Anti-Tax’s statement “You’re a dishonest imbecile” although vulgar and
abusive speech, it is protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, Anti-Tax is not likely to be