Citation. 268 U.S. 652,45 S. Ct. 625,69 L. Ed. 1138,1925 U.S.
Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here Brief Fact Summary.
In this first “Red Scare” case, the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) upheld a conviction for the crime of statutory anarchy, finding that the statute was constitutional as a reasonable exercise of the police power since the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution) guarantees are “incorporated” by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
A state may punish utterances endangering the foundations of organized government and threatening its overthrow by unlawful means.
Facts.
The Defendant, Benjamin Gitlow (Defendant), was indicted and convicted for the New York statutory crime of anarchy. The indictment had two counts. The first alleged that Defendant had advocated, advised and taught the duty, necessity and propriety of overthrowing organized government by force by writings in the “Left Wing Manifest.” The second count clamed that Defendant had printed and published a paper called, “The Revolutionary Age,” containing the writings set forth in count one.
Issue.
Whether the statute under which Defendant is charged and applied to this case, is repugnant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution because it penalizes the mere utterance of “doctrine” having no quality of incitement, without regard to circumstances or the likelihood of unlawful consequences?
Held.
No. Judgment of the lower court affirmed. This statute merely prohibits language advocating, advising or teaching the overthrow of organized government by unlawful means. Defendant’s “Left Wing Manifesto” advocates and urges in fervent language mass action to overthrow organized government. A state may punish such utterances endangering the foundations of organized government and threatening its overthrow by unlawful means. Every assumption is to be indulged in favor of the validity of the statute, that such utterances endangering the foundations of organized government and threatening its overthrow by unlawful means, present sufficient danger of substantive evil to bring their punishment within the range of legislative discretion is clear. Therefore, the statute under which Defendant was convicted is constitutional.
Dissent.
The judgment should be reversed. The manifesto is not incitement. The general principle of free speech should be included in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Discussion.
This first “Red Scare” case illustrates the feverish anti-radicalism that lasted from the 1920’s to the 1930’s. Many states enacted laws prohibiting the advocacy of criminal anarchy and criminal syndicalism.
