The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1925-06-11


stitution of the United States there IL
the provision Congress shall make
no law abridging the right OF freedom
Of speech, press and assembly. -"
That is pretty plain language. "Con
gress shall make no law. :" This 1;
one Of the provisions Of the constitu
ton upon which is based the claim
that the United States government IL
democracy and that the constitution
protects the rights of the people.
Congress shall make no law. ="
But congress did make laws abridg
ing the right OF freedom of speech
press and assembly. It passed the
Espionage Law Immediately after the
entry of this country into the world
war, which in SCORE or two of formt
abridged the right OF freedom oil
speech, press and asssmblage.
Tho Supreme Court and Free Speech
INTHEN the question of harmonic
w ing the provision Of the constitu
ton which said congress shall make
no law with the fact that congress
made law, came before the supreme
court for adjustment in appeals from
convection under the espionage law
the court found an interesting way Out
Of the dilemma. 1t declared in a mum
Der of decision unfolding the consti
tutionality Of the espionage law: Of
course, congress has no right to make
laws which prevent people from say
ing what they please or writing what
they please, but congress can punish
such persons for what they say OF
write II there is a clear and imminent
danger of injury resulting from the
speech or writing
The clear and imminent danger
rule was applied by the supreme court
in all OF the war cases. To illustrate
the meaning Of that rule: A preacher
was accused of making a speech
against the draft law in Montana. II
was proven in his case that all Of his
audience was above the draft age
Well, said the court, no injury could
come from such a speech since nc
one who heard him could have beer
Influenced not to register, and 1t re
versed the conviction Of the preacher
The rulings Of the supreme court
in the war cases, while nicely evadine
the clear and explicit language of the
constitution. left, theoretically, some
vestiges of the right of freedom Of
speech, press and assemblage.
In the Gitlow case the supreme
court has finished the job. 1t has
stamped out what vestiges of the
rights granted by the constitution
which were left by its war-law deci
sions.
The New York criminal anarchy
law, as well as all criminal syndical
list laws, do not punish for the results
which may come from a speech OF
writing. They punish the mere ad
vocacy of certain ideas or principles
The court of appeals Of the state Of
New York, from which Gitlow ap
pealed, expressly stated in it's opinion
affirming Gitlow's conviction that the
question whether any one read the
Revolutionary Age and "clear and
imminent danger" of injury resulted
was not important in the case. It de
clared that the law punished the ad
vocacy Of certain principles no matter
when or how they were uttered OF
written.
The supreme court has upheld this
view in confirming the conviction Of
Gitlow.
From the constitutional provision
that congress shall make no law. >
we have come to the ruling OF the
supreme court that congress OF the
state legislatures may make any Law
they see fit to punish the advocac,
Of ideas which they considers detri
mental.
The supreme court has writer
''finis" under the theory that the con
stitution assured the people Of THU
country the right of freedom o.
speech, press and assemblage. 1t hal
declared that we have freedom Il
write, speak and hold meeting abou
only those things which our masteri
think are good.
To the Communists the suprem,
court has given one more proof tina
the boasted American democracy 4
sham and fraud, one more proc
that It is not constitutions but tn,
interests OF the capitalists which do
inmate all the institutions OF the gov
ernment--one more proof that tn
only way to democracy for the work
ers is thru the establishment OF tn
highest form OF democracy, the Soviet
and the proletarlan dictatorship.
IT, MILF vHyvu