Gitlow v. New York Case

Issue Presented 

The issue presented in the “Gitlow v. New York – Freedom of Speech: The Impact it made in the United States” is one of a ruling by the Supreme Court of the U.S. on June 8, 1925. It revolved around the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that focuses on safeguarding free speech. It stipulates that the Congress does not have the mandate of curtailing speech freedom, which is also applicable in the event of state governments. The decision that the Supreme Court made emerged as the initial one that stipulated that the clause pertaining to the due process evident in the Fourteenth Amendment needed both the federal as well as state governments to follow similar standards regarding the regulation of free speech (Findlaw, 2017) . The case emerged in November 1919 following the incident when police in New York arrested Benjamin Gitlow and Alan Larkin arguing that they had engaged in criminal anarchy, which the state law of New York regarded as a crime. Gitlow had operated as an assembly member locally while Larkin worked as an associate. Larkin and Gitlow were affiliated with the Communist Party while also published the “The Left Wing Manifesto” article. The article supported a forceful U.S. administration overthrow (Justia, 2017) . Whereas Gitlow stipulated that the article did not precipitate any violent activity during trial, he ended up being convicted while the appellate court of the state upheld the conviction.

Constitutional Issue or Questions Involved 

The Constitutional issues or questions apparent in the case were several. For instance, it was assumed that in facilitating the case, speech freedom together with the one of the press serves as among the personal liberties and rights that the clause of the due process found in the Fourteenth Amendment protected from being impaired by the state (Justia, 2017) . Also, the press and speech freedom, as the Constitution secured, does not serves as an absolute right for publishing or speaking without exercising responsibility for what an individual might select or even immunity from each probable language use. Additionally, for the State, while utilizing its power of the police, it might consider punishing the parties found abusing the freedom through utterances unfriendly to the welfare of the public aimed at corrupting their morals, disrupt the prevailing peace, or incite individuals to engage in criminal activities (Findlaw, 2017) . Furthermore, a State, for additional imperative reasons might consider punishing utterances that pose dangers to the groundwork of a prearranged administration and posing threats to overthrow it by planning illegal mechanisms (Oyez, 2017) .

Constitutionally, it is crucial to note that in the event of a statute that punishes utterances that seem to supporting the overthrow of a prearranged administration by forceful and illegal means, it requires that the utterances should be so unfriendly to the overall welfare of the public. It should also involve dangers of significant evil thereby allowing the power of the police to penalize (Oyez, 2017) . Additionally, the determination relating to such an issue should be given considerable weight while each supposition is pandered to favor the statute’s legitimacy (Findlaw, 2017) . In addition, the utterances need to present significant danger to the security and peace of the public in the State to ensure that the punishment the perpetrators receive falls within the legislative decision’s range, irrespective of whether it is possible for foresee the influence of the particular utterance (Justia, 2017) . Besides, a state is not needed to concede adopting actions against the revolutionary expressions until they seem to contribute to real peace disturbance as well as pose danger to the destruction of the state.

In the event of the statute of New York, it is responsible for punishing the parties that advice, advocate, and educate the necessity, duty, or even modesty of overturning or overthrowing a prearranged administration through violence, force, or other means perceived as unlawful. It also targets those publishing, printing, or circulate any paper or book knowingly that advice, teach or advise on the need for overthrowing a government (Findlaw, 2017) . However, it does not offer room for penalizing publications or utterances of academic discussion or abstract doctrine that do not seem to possess incitement quality, although it condemns support for action in the event that it manages to realize the overturning of a prearranged administration through lawful means (Oyez, 2017) .

Arguments Supporting the Issue and Arguments against the Issue 

In supporting the need for convicting Gitlow, the court stipulated that the case of Gitlow revolved around the groundwork that the government might consider punishing or suppressing speech that appears to support illegal government overthrow. It also supported the idea that a state statute’s constitutionality on the issue led it to be perceived as a crime in advocating for the need, duty, or idealness of overturning an administration by force or violence. According to the majority opinion, Judge Edward Sanford focused on defining through clear means the “clear and present danger” assessment that had been instituted several years earlier in the 1919 “Schenck v. United States” case (Findlaw, 2017) . He adopted the “bad tendency” evaluation apparent in “Schenck v. United States” case, which stipulated that a state might consider punishing utterances found to be posing dangers to the bases of a government and claiming to overturn it via illegal means. The reason for this was that such kind of a speech posed adequate danger to the peace of the public as well as the State’s security. In the viewpoint of Sanford, it is possible for a revolutionary spark to result to fire, which might with time result to devastating effects. He stipulated that the Manifesto comprised of a language that seemed to incite the public directly hence would not be perceived as articulating philosophical thought (Justia, 2017) .

In arguing against the case, Holmes, who authored the “clear and present danger test” apparent in Schenck v. U.S. case stipulated that he agreed it was the ideal test worth employing when it comes to judging the limitations associated with expression freedom. Supported by Brandeis, he revealed that Gitlow did not pose any present danger since just a limited number of individuals agreed with the views apparent in the Manifesto as well as because it depicted a revolution at an unspecified period in future (Justia, 2017) . Holmes responded to the kindling metaphor used by Sanford that expressiveness might lead reason to catch fire, although anything they might be perceived as of the redundant dialogue before the judges did not have chance for initiating a present conflagration (Findlaw, 2017) .

The Courts Ruling 

At the Supreme Court, verbal arguments prevailed during April as well as November 1923, whereas the issuance of the ruling by the court took place in June 1925, which Justice Edward Sanford wrote (Findlaw, 2017) . The court supported the conviction of Gitlow, although via ironic means, it appeared that the ruling played a role in broadening protections in free speech among people. The reason for this is that the court stipulates that the First Amendment applied to governments of states via the clause of the due process found in the Fourteenth Amendment (Oyez, 2017) . The opinion by the majority revealed that the court assumes speech and press freedom, which the First Amendment protects from being abridged by the Congress, serve as the key personal liberties and rights that the clause of the due process in the Fourteenth Amendment protects from being compromised by states. While supporting that the conviction followed the Constitution’s requirements, nonetheless, the court did not follow the “clear and present danger” evaluation apparent in the 1919 case of Schenck v. U.S. (Findlaw, 2017) . Rather, it utilized the “bad tendency” assessment. The state law of New York followed the constitution in that it is not possible for a state to be required through reasonable means to deter institution of mechanisms for safety and peace until radical statements result to real commotion in the event of public peace or one that might contribute to its instant destruction (Oyez, 2017) . However, it might, while exercising its individual judgment lay emphasis on suppressing any danger found in its incipiency.

In the event of Justice Oliver Holmes as well as Louis Brandeis, in their opposing opinions, however, they supported the “clear and present danger” assessment. They argues that no apparent danger prevailed that showed attempts of overthrowing the administration through violent means since only a limited number of individuals shared similar views. Each idea serves as a form of incitement (Findlaw, 2017) . The reason for this is that it normally presents itself to be believed. In the event that it is believed, it is normally acted on, but that does not happen in case a different belief appears to outweigh it or when lack of sufficient energy weakens the movement just after emerges. In case the document focused on instituting a revolution against the administration instantly rather than at certain undefined period in the future, a distinct question would have emerged. However, the impeachment alleges the document and nothing else (Justia, 2017) . Overall, therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the ruling that assisted in enabling speech prohibitions, which supported probable violence in1930s. Afterwards, the court introduced various restrictions on the kinds of speech the government might suppress through permissible means.

Own Opinions 

From the case, I have realized that freedom of speech as well as that of the press might result to violence in case it contains relevant material to incite the public. I agree with the ruling because were it not for the intervention of the court, it might be probable that other individuals might have devised other documents, which might be more intense that they lead to immediate overthrow of a government. Thus, I agree that the case has facilitated in changing the society presently as individuals exercise tremendous caution when uttering anything that might affect the stability of any government.

References

Findlaw. (2017). Gitlow v. People of State of New York. Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/268/652.html

Justia. (2017). Gitlow v. New York . Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/268/652/case.html

Oyez. (2017). Gitlow v. New York. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/268us652