Gitlow v. New York (Free Speech, NY)
Legal Issues
BrynoDC Coverage 1 video
Overview
Overview
The Court held that the First Amendment's free speech protection applies to states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Overview
The Court held that the First Amendment's free speech protection applies to states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
The Facts
Facts
Benjamin Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested and convicted under New York's Criminal Anarchy Statute for publishing a manifesto advocating forcible overthrow of the government. Gitlow challenged his conviction as violating free speech rights. New York courts upheld the conviction, and Gitlow appealed to the Supreme Court.
Facts
Benjamin Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested and convicted under New York's Criminal Anarchy Statute for publishing a manifesto advocating forcible overthrow of the government. Gitlow challenged his conviction as violating free speech rights. New York courts upheld the conviction, and Gitlow appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Issue
Issue
Whether New York's Criminal Anarchy Act violated the First Amendment's protection of speech and press by criminalizing publication of a left-wing manifesto advocating the overthrow of the government, and whether the First Amendment applies to restrict state action through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Issue
Whether New York's Criminal Anarchy Act violated the First Amendment's protection of speech and press by criminalizing publication of a left-wing manifesto advocating the overthrow of the government, and whether the First Amendment applies to restrict state action through the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Rules
Rule
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), assumed, for the first time, that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause incorporates First Amendment freedoms of speech and press against the states, beginning the doctrine of selective incorporation. Despite incorporation, the Court upheld the conviction under the 'bad tendency' test, deferring to the legislature's judgment that the speech tended to subvert the government.
Rule
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), assumed, for the first time, that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause incorporates First Amendment freedoms of speech and press against the states, beginning the doctrine of selective incorporation. Despite incorporation, the Court upheld the conviction under the 'bad tendency' test, deferring to the legislature's judgment that the speech tended to subvert the government.
The Application
Analysis
The Court first applied incorporation doctrine to New York's Criminal Anarchy Act, holding that this state statute must satisfy First Amendment standards. A groundbreaking expansion of constitutional protection. However, under the lenient "bad tendency" test, the Court found Gitlow's published manifesto fell within punishable speech: its advocacy of violent overthrow of government had a tendency to incite lawless action, which the state could constitutionally prevent. The Court deferred to New York's legislative judgment that this particular publication. Promoting "revolutionary mass action",posed a sufficient threat to justify criminal penalties. Gitlow thus illustrates how incorporation expanded speech protection in principle while the "bad tendency" standard permitted substantial practical restrictions on radical political expression.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
The Court held 7-2 that the First Amendment applies to states via the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, establishing incorporation doctrine. However, the Court upheld Gitlow's conviction under the "bad tendency" test, reasoning the state could punish speech tending to incite unlawful action. This case marked a pivotal shift in constitutional protection of free expression, even though Gitlow lost his case.
Conclusion
The Court held 7-2 that the First Amendment applies to states via the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, establishing incorporation doctrine. However, the Court upheld Gitlow's conviction under the "bad tendency" test, reasoning the state could punish speech tending to incite unlawful action. This case marked a pivotal shift in constitutional protection of free expression, even though Gitlow lost his case.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support