Which interpretation would permit legislatures to forbid speech encouraging illegal action?

• A. Bad Tendency Test
• B. Clear and Present Danger Test
• C. Endorsement Test
• D. Nonpreferentialist Test

Answer: (A)

The key idea here is how different tests set the threshold for when the government can restrict speech that advocates illegal action. The Bad Tendency Test allows the government to curb speech simply if it has a tendency to lead to illegal activity, even if there’s no imminent danger or direct incitement. That broad, preventative approach means a legislature could forbid speech that encourages illegal actions just because it might influence people to engage in wrongdoing.

By contrast, the Clear and Present Danger Test requires an imminent risk of lawless action before suppressing speech, making it much harder to ban mere encouragement. The Endorsement Test is about whether the government’s actions endorse a viewpoint, not about preventing illegal acts, and the Nonpreferentialist Test deals with neutrality toward religion rather than incitement to crime. So the interpretation that best fits allowing bans on speech that encourages illegal action is the Bad Tendency Test.