The US Supreme Court upheld Benjamin Gitlow's conviction for distributing a left-wing manifesto that advocated for violent revolution. The majority opinion found that New York state had the right to restrict speech that advocated unlawful overthrow of the government, as such speech could potentially lead to violence. However, Justice Holmes dissented, arguing that free speech protections applied to the states and that Gitlow's speech did not pose a clear and present danger since the ideas were not widely accepted. The case established that the First Amendment applied to states but that states could still restrict certain types of speech.
The US Supreme Court upheld Benjamin Gitlow's conviction for distributing a left-wing manifesto that advocated for violent revolution. The majority opinion found that New York state had the right to restrict speech that advocated unlawful overthrow of the government, as such speech could potentially lead to violence. However, Justice Holmes dissented, arguing that free speech protections applied to the states and that Gitlow's speech did not pose a clear and present danger since the ideas were not widely accepted. The case established that the First Amendment applied to states but that states could still restrict certain types of speech.
Original Description:
A description of the court case Gitlow v. New York, all of the essential arguments
The US Supreme Court upheld Benjamin Gitlow's conviction for distributing a left-wing manifesto that advocated for violent revolution. The majority opinion found that New York state had the right to restrict speech that advocated unlawful overthrow of the government, as such speech could potentially lead to violence. However, Justice Holmes dissented, arguing that free speech protections applied to the states and that Gitlow's speech did not pose a clear and present danger since the ideas were not widely accepted. The case established that the First Amendment applied to states but that states could still restrict certain types of speech.
The US Supreme Court upheld Benjamin Gitlow's conviction for distributing a left-wing manifesto that advocated for violent revolution. The majority opinion found that New York state had the right to restrict speech that advocated unlawful overthrow of the government, as such speech could potentially lead to violence. However, Justice Holmes dissented, arguing that free speech protections applied to the states and that Gitlow's speech did not pose a clear and present danger since the ideas were not widely accepted. The case established that the First Amendment applied to states but that states could still restrict certain types of speech.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
Gitlow V.
New York (1925)
Tanner Sands Facts: Benjamin Gitlow was arrested in New York on charges of criminal anarchy for printing and distributing the first issue of The Revolutionary Age which contained the Left Wing Manifesto. He appealed on the basis that New Yorks statute contradicts the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Holding: Conviction upheld Majority Opinion (Justice Sanford): 1. There is no evidence that the publication of the manifesto had a negative effect 2. Because of the due process clause No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The first amendment applies to states, however this right is not absolute 3. The New York statute does not penalize the utterance or publication of abstract doctrine or any academic discussion that does not incite action 4. It is not aimed against historical or philosophical essays and it doesnt prohibit advocacy of changes in the form of government by lawful and constitutional means 5. It only prohibits advocacy of an unlawful overthrow of organized government 6. The state is in its rights to ensure public safety and welfare and their laws are only unconstitutional if they are arbitrary or unreasonable 7. Any utterance of overthrowing the government is sufficient enough to fit this standard, A single revolutionary spark may kindle a fire that, smoldering for a time, may burst into a sweeping and destructive conflagration. It cannot be said that the State is acting arbitrarily or unreasonably when in the excise of its judgment as to the measures necessary to protect the public peace and safety, it seeks to extinguish the spark without waiting until it has enkindled the flame or blazed into the conflagration. 8. Utterances can be restricted if their natural tendency and probable effect is to cause substantive evil. However, in this case that test cannot be applied because the New York legislative body has already determined the substantive evil of this speech 9. This ruling is reminiscent of Justice Hands reasoning that speech should be restricted based on content and not clear and present danger Dissent: Justice Holmes 1. Free speech must be included in the Fourteenth Amendment as part of Liberty 2. There is no clear and present danger to overthrow the government because there is a small minority that shares his view 3. Any idea can be considered an incitement, because any opinion can be acted upon 4. The difference between incitement and opinion is the speakers enthusiasm 5. If the paper argued to overthrow the government immediately and not some ambiguous time in the future it would be different
Comments: 1. Justice Sanford has a very narrow definition of free speech 2. Justice Holmes disregards the New York state law by sticking to his clear and present danger standard 3. When Stone argues the First Amendment [places] out of bounds any law that attempts to freeze public debate at a particular moment in time it is applicable to Gitlow. The Manifesto is intolerant to the moderate socialist movement and argues for revolutionary mass acting. This extremism is not open to debate 4. The marketplace protects the flow of ideas so long as they are lawful. If it protects violent speech, that speech can freeze public debate and hinder the pursuit of truth