In brandenburg v. ohio (1969), the court rewrote the test: the state may not interfere with speech unless the speech "incites imminent lawless action" and is likely to "produce such action."

Karin bought illegal firearms at a gun show. at her trial, she alleged that she had committed this crime because her boyfriend had threatened to harm her and her two daughters if she did not. her lawyer asked the judge to instruct the jury that the prosecution had an obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that karin had acted freely. instead, the judge told the jury that karin had the burden of proving duress by a preponderance of the evidence. who is correct?