Gitlow v. New York

What was the name and year of the case?

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

What was the main issue in the case?

Whether the First Amendment prevents a state from punishing political speech that advocates for the government's violent overthrow.

Who was the plaintiff in the case?

Benjamin Gitlow, a socialist.

Who was the defendant?

The State of New York.

Who wrote the Court’s majority opinion?

Justice Edward T. Sanford.

Who wrote the dissenting opinion?

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Why was Gitlow arrested?

He was arrested for distributing a "Left Wing Manifesto" that called for the establishment of socialism through strikes and class action, violating New York’s Criminal Anarchy Law.

How did Gitlow defend his actions?

He argued that since no concrete action resulted from the manifesto, he was being punished unjustly for his words, violating his right to free speech.

What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?

The Court ruled that New York could prohibit speech that advocated for government overthrow, even if it did not immediately incite action.

What was the final vote?

7–2 in favor of New York.

What was the reasoning behind the decision?

The Court reasoned that the government has the right to punish speech that threatens its basic existence, citing national security concerns.

Which previous cases were used as precedent?

Schenck v. United States (1919) and Abrams v. United States (1919).

Which earlier case did Gitlow partially overturn?

Barron v. Baltimore (1833).

How did Gitlow change the precedent set by Barron v. Baltimore?

It established the incorporation doctrine, applying the Bill of Rights to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

What was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' argument in dissent?

He argued that Gitlow’s speech did not pose a "clear and present danger" and was too abstract to incite real action.

What was the significance of this case?

It marked the beginning of the incorporation doctrine, applying the Bill of Rights to states while also limiting free speech in cases involving government overthrow.

Should free speech be limited when advocating for revolution?

Answers may vary. Some argue it should be limited for national security, while others believe such limitations could lead to broader censorship and abuse of power.