New Britain herald., 1925-06-11
FREE SPEECH

The U. \, supreme court Nh' ! other day gave a far-reaching de- ! cision as to where free speech ends. In the Gitlow case the court held | that no man has the right to preach ! revolution by force, or the over throwing of government by force of arms.
 It is curious that such a basic and elemental principle had to ho enunciated by the highest court in the land before snme misguided in- dividuals get convinced that the sky is not the limit In public discussion.
 Gitlow was formerly member of the New York legislature and So- cialist of the extreme type. His counsel admitted his published ut terances meant just what they said - armed revolution against the government
 The rcvolutionist has been pro- scribed by constituted authority in all ages. and civilization has not 1 changed tho rules. George Wash ington was olutionist, and was
 willing to take the consequences had the revolution against England
 failed. But Washington fought for principle of universal human ap-
 plication and had the backing Of
 colonies which did not permit the
 plan 10 fail. Robert F. Lee was a
 rcvolutionist, as were the entire
 southern states, and the followers
 of Jefferson Davis caused rather an
 uproar for four years with their
 armed insurrection, They had q
 large following hut that did not
 alter the principle which the North
 crn states upheld,
 Gitlow was rofoIutionlSt ana
 preached armed instruction But
 the difference between GjtloW anu
 the other bigger rcyolutioni5lS
 mentioned was that Gitlow had 2
 small and inconsequenual following
 and thought that by preaching hl' , revolutionary doctrine he could m , crease his following and in du' , course create inc conditions 10 3 which he labored. In order to pro . tcct itself it was not necessary 10 P the royornment to wait until sucl ) armed instruction really materl ? alized The government of Ne7 S York protected itself by arrrStlni
 and convicting Gitlow and nipPin $ his enterprise in the bud,
 }, Newspapers are legally responsi e bIo for their statements: they can
 no, preach revolution and ever $ editor knows if But newspaper Il and private citizens, however ca J. advocate changes in the govefr Y, ntent by constitutional means; the d can attempt to influence others 1t legally change governmental poi c, cics change the officials of the gov
 crnmpnt through the operation W thc ballot. and criticise to the of hearts content so long as su( W criticism does not incitc violence is violent opposition to conShtu'' ce authority. They can attempt to u ng set an administration of the goVer
 mont and attempt to substitute a ut other administration - in fact u in is attempted at every clection-0 re they cannot attempt to upset | rts government. by force or o'her"l ne and have no constitutional adnil to, istration. Any other system "oI IL undermine the government ana iv nd to no government or dicta'oFSh ire rilow was a foolish person " ho in lieu of failure to convince ' la majority of citizens of the JoSl ill., of his jews attempted to DFi
 ahont revolution Of his own
 significant minority and have th
 fierce their conceptions of goVe re- ment upon the majority, If Gitlo hat economic ilras were worth rlI gan of salt he could haHe made he yho way ny merely discussing th' nal ubtrh would ha,, been legal and and conformity with tho rights of ( VAS zfrs. But when he went 10 cXtrel 'e" and advocated rrvolution he mel
 pushed his rrautum aga'nsl S' lids wall and didu" ujure he wall. can
 lent a5 PER CENT