The "per curiam" opinion cited "Dennis v. United States" as though it were good law and amenable to the result reached in "Brandenburg". However, "Brandenburg" completely did away with "Dennis" central holding and held that "mere advocacy" of any doctrine, including one that assumed the necessity of violence or law violation, was "per se" protected speech. It may be that principles of "stare decisis" figured in the Court's decision to avoid overruling the relatively recent "Dennis", but the distance between the two cases' approach is obvious and irreconcilable.