We cannot hold that the present statute is an arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of the police power of the State unwarrantably infringing the freedom of speech or press; and we must and do sustain its constitutionality. It does not protect publications or teachings which tend to subvert or imperil the government or to impede or hinder it in the performance of its governmental duties. The act of pleading for, supporting, or recommending; active espousal.” It is not the abstract “doctrine” of overthrowing organized government by unlawful means which is denounced by the statute, but the advocacy of action for the accomplishment of that purpose. Div. If I am right then I think that the criterion sanctioned by the full Court in Schenck v. United States (1919), applies: The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that [the State] has a right to prevent.

. 1919)

Its material provisions are: “Sec.

the commission of this conspiracy or action by mass strike whereby government is crippled, the administration of justice paralyzed, and the health, morals and welfare of a community endangered, and this for the purpose of bringing about a revolution in the state, is to advocate the overthrow of organized government by unlawful means.”, “As we read this Manifesto . 1915C, 960; Fox v. Washington, 236 U.S. 273, 276 , 35 S. Ct. 383; Schaefer v. United States, 251 U.S. 466, 474 , 40 S. Ct. 259; Gilbert v. Minnesota, 254 U.S. 325, 338 , 41 S. Ct. 125; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 , 43 S. Ct. 625, 29 A. L. R. 1446; 2 Story on the Constitution, 5th Ed., 1950, p. 698. The sole contention here is, essentially, that as there was no evidence of any concrete result flowing from the publication of the Manifesto or of circumstances showing the likelihood of such result, the statute as construed and applied by the trial court penalizes the mere utterance, as such, of “doctrine” having no quality of incitement, without regard either to the circumstances of its utterance or to the likelihood of unlawful sequences; and that, as the exercise of the right of free expression with relation to government is only punishable “in circumstances involving likelihood of substantive evil,” the statute contravenes the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The court, among other things, charged the jury, in substance, that they must determine what was the intent, purpose and fair meaning of the Manifesto; that its words must be taken in their ordinary meaning, as they would be understood by people whom it might reach; that a mere statement or analysis of social and economic facts and historical incidents, in the nature of an essay, accompanied by prophecy as to the future course of events, but with no teaching, advice or advocacy of action, would not constitute the advocacy, advice or teaching of a doctrine for the overthrow of government within the meaning of the statute; that a mere statement that unlawful acts might accomplish such a purpose would be insufficient, unless there was a teaching, advising and advocacy of employing such unlawful acts for the purpose of overthrowing government; and that if the jury had a reasonable doubt that the Manifesto did teach, advocate or advise the duty, necessity or propriety of using unlawful means for the overthrowing of organized government, the defendant was entitled to an acquittal. 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. 773, 782, 790, 187 N. Y. S. 783, 791.

. .” p. 154 (136 N. E. 326). William Taft In People v. Lloyd, supra, p. 35, it was aptly said: “Manifestly, the legislature has authority to forbid the advocacy of a doctrine designed and intended to overthrow the government without waiting until there is a present and imminent danger of the success of the plan advocated. To advocate . Every idea is an incitement. . Out of workers’ control of industry, introduced by the proletarian dictatorship, there develops the complete structure of Communist Socialism―industrial self-government of the communistically organized producers. Revolutionary Socialism, accordingly, repudiates the policy of introducing Socialism by means of legislative measures on the basis of the bourgeois state. “Is guilty of a felony and punishable” by imprisonment or fine, or both. v. Clara City) . Principal discussion of a case The indictment was in two counts. Gitlow v. New York was decided on June 8, 1925, by the U.S. Supreme Court.

There was no evidence of any effect resulting from the publication and circulation of the Manifesto. Benjamin Gitlow was indicted in the Supreme Court of New York, with three others, for the statutory crime of criminal anarchy. XVIII century]. The Communist International calls the proletariat of the world to the final struggle!” This is not the expression of philosophical abstraction, the mere prediction of future events; it is the language of direct incitement. Please fill in a valid value for all required fields. Edward Sanford

Revolutionary Socialism, accordingly, recognizes that the supreme form of proletarian political action is the political mass strike. . The revolutionary proletariat must, accordingly, destroy this state. Citations are generated automatically from bibliographic data as . The defendant’s counsel submitted two requests to charge which embodied in substance the statement that to constitute criminal anarchy within the meaning of the statute it was necessary that the language used or published should advocate, teach or advise the duty, necessity or propriety of doing “some definite or immediate act or acts” or force, violence or unlawfulness directed toward the overthrowing of organized government. And, for yet more imperative reasons, a State may punish utterances endangering the foundations of organized government and threatening its overthrow by unlawful means.

234 N.Y. 132, 138. . . Moderate Socialism affirms that the bourgeois, democratic parliamentary state is the necessary basis for the introduction of Socialism. Following is the case brief for Gitlow v. New York, United States Supreme Court, (1925) Case summary for Gitlow v. New York: Gitlow was arrested after distributing socialist material he published in a newspaper. Extracts from the Manifesto are set forth in the margin. [2] Italics are given as in the original, but the paragraphing is omitted. Thus it was held by this Court in the Fox Case, that a State may punish publications advocating and encouraging a breach of its criminal laws; and, in the Gilbert Case, that a State may punish utterances teaching or advocating that its citizens should not assist the United States in prosecuting or carrying on war with its public enemies. Co. v. Cheek . It is true that there is no advocacy in specific terms of the use of .