Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/268/652.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 00:09:03+00:00

Document:
[268 U.S. 652, 653] Messrs. Walter H. Pollak and Walter Nelles, both of New York City, for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. John Caldwell Myers, of New York City, and W. J. Wetherbee and Claude T. Dawes, both of Albany, N. Y., for the People of the State of New York.
Benjamin Gitlow was indicted in the Supreme Court of New York, with three others, for the statutory crime of criminal anarchy. New York Penal Law, 160, 161.1 He was separately tried, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment. The judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Division and by the Court of Appeals. People v. Gitlow, 195 App. Div. 773, 187 N. Y. S. 783; 234 N. Y. 132, 136 N. E. 317; and 234 N. Y. 529, 138 N. E. 438. The case is here on writ of error to the Supreme Court, to which the record was remitted. 260 U.S. 703 , 43 S. Ct. 163.
'Sec. 160. Criminal Anarchy Defined. Criminal anarchy is the doctrine that organized government should be overthrown by force or violence, or by assessination of the executive head or of any of the executive officials of government, or by any unlawful means. The advocacy of such doctrine either by word of mouth or writing is a felony.
'Is guilty of a felony and punishable' by imprisonment or fine, or both.
The indictment was in two counts. The first charged that the defendant had advocated, advised and taught the duty, necessity and propriety of overthrowing and overturning organized government by force, violence and unlawful means, by certain writings therein set forth entitled 'The Left Wing Manifesto'; the second that he had printed, published and knowingly circulated and distributed a certain paper called 'The Revolutionary Age,' containing the writings set forth in the first count advocating, advising and teaching the doctrine that organized government should be overthrown by force, violence and unlawful means.
There was no evidence of any effect resulting from the publication and circulation of the Manifesto.
No witnesses were offered in behalf of the defendant.
Extracts from the Manifesto are set forth in the margin. 2 Coupled with a review of the rise of Socialism, it [268 U.S. 652, 657] condemned the dominant 'moderate Socialism' for its recognition of the necessity of the democratic parliamentary state; repudiated its policy of introducing Socialism by legislative measures; and advocated, in plain and unequivocal language, the necessity of accomplishing the 'Communist Revolution' by a militant and 'revolutionary Socialism,' based on 'the class struggle' and mobilizing [268 U.S. 652, 658] the 'power of the proletariat in action,' through mass industrial revolts developing into mass political strikes and 'revolutionary mass action,' for the purpose of conquering and destroying the parliamentary state and establishing in its place, through a 'revoluntionary dictatorship of the proletariat,' the system of Communist Socialism. The then recent strikes in Seattle and Winnepeg3 were cited as instances of a development already verging on revolutionary action and suggestive of proletarian [268 U.S. 652, 659] dictatorship, in which the strike-workers were 'trying to usurp the functions of municipal government'; and revolutionary Socialism, it was urged, must use these mass industrial revolts to broaden the strike, make it general and militant, and develop it into mass political strikes and revolutionary mass action for the annihilation of the parliamentary state.
At the outset of the trial the defendant's counsel objected to the introduction of any evidence under the [268 U.S. 652, 660] indictment on the grounds that, as a matter of law, the Manifesto 'is not in contravention of the statute,' and that 'the statute is in contravention of' the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This objection was denied. They also moved, at the close of the evidence, to dismiss the indictment and direct an acquittal 'on the grounds stated in the first objection to evidence,' [268 U.S. 652, 661] and again on the grounds that 'the indictment does not charge an offense' and the evidence 'does not show an offense.' These motions were also denied.
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 the 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.
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. These were denied further than had been charged. Two other requests to charge embodied in substance the statement that to constitute guilt the language used or published must be 'reasonably and ordinarily calculated to incite certain persons' to acts of force, violence or unlawfulness, [268 U.S. 652, 662] with the object of overthrowing organized government. These were also denied.
And both the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals held the statute constitutional.
The specification of the errors relied on relates solely to the specific rulings of the trial court in the matters hereinbefore set out. 8 The correctness of the verdict is not [268 U.S. 652, 664] questioned, as the case was submitted to the jury. 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 argument in support of this contention rests primarily upon the following propositions: 1st, That the 'liberty' protected by the Fourteenth Amendment includes the liberty of speech and of the press; and 2d, That while liberty of expression 'is not absolute,' it may be restrained 'only in circumstances where its exercise bears a causal relation with some substantive evil, consummated, attempted or likely,' and as the statute 'takes no account of circumstances,' it unduly restrains this liberty and is therefore unconstitutional.
The precise question presented, and the only question which we can consider under this writ of error, then is, whether the statute, as construed and applied in this case, by the State courts, deprived the defendant of his liberty of expression in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
This is not the expression of philosophical abstraction, the mere prediction of future events; it is the language of direct incitement.
The means advocated for bringing about the destruction of organized parliamentary government, namely, mass industrial [268 U.S. 652, 666] revolts usurping the functions of municipal government, political mass strikes directed against the parliamentary state, and revolutionary mass action for its final destruction, necessarily imply the use of force and violence, and in their essential nature are inherently unlawful in a constitutional government of law and order. That the jury were warranted in finding that the Manifesto advocated not merely the abstract doctrine of overthrowing organized government by force, violence and unlawful means, but action to that end, is clear.
It is a fundamental principle, long established, that the freedom of speech and of the press which is secured by the Constitution, does not confer an absolute right to speak or publish, without responsibility, whatever one may choose, or an unrestricted and unbridled license that gives immunity for every possible use of language and prevents the punishment of those who abuse this freedom. 2 Story on the Constitution ( 5th Ed.) 1580, p. 634; Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281 , 17 S. Ct. 326; Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 , 27 S. Ct. 556, 10 Ann. Cas. 689; Fox v. Washington, 236 [268 U.S. 652, 667] U. S. 273, 276, 35 S. Ct. 383; Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 , 39 S. Ct. 247; Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204, 206 , 39 S. Ct. 249; Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211, 213 , 39 S. Ct. 252; Schaefer v. United States, 251 U.S. 466, 474 , 40 S. Ct. 259; Gilbert v. Minnesota, 254 U.S. 325, 332 , 41 S. Ct. 125; Warren v. United States, 183 F. 718, 721, 106 C. C. A. 156, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 800. Reasonably limited, it was said by Story in the passage cited, this freedom is an inestimable privilege in a free government; without such limitation, it might become the scourge of the republic.
That a State in the exercise of its police power may punish those who abuse this freedom by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to corrupt public morals, incite to crime, or disturb the public peace, is not open to question. Robertson v. Baldwin, supra, p. 281 (17 S. Ct. 326); Patterson v. Colorado, supra, p. 462 (27 S. Ct. 556); Fox v. Washington, supra, p. 277 (35 S. Ct. 383); Gilbert v. Minnesota, supra, p. 339 (41 S. Ct. 125); People v. Most, 171 N. Y. 423, 431, 64 N. E. 175, 58 L. R. A. 509; State v. Holm, 139 Minn. 267, 275, 166 N. W. 181, L. R. A. 1918C, 304; State v. Hennessy, 114 Wash. 351, 359, 195 P. 211; State v. Boyd, 86 N. J. Law, 75, 79, 91 A. 586; State v. McKee, 73 Conn. 18, 27, 46 A. 409, 49 L. R. A. 542, 84 Am. St. Rep. 124. 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.
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.
This being so it may be applied to every utterance-not too trivial to be beneath the notice of the law-which is of such a character and used with such intent and purpose as to bring it within the prohibition of the statute. This principle is illustrated in Fox v. Washington, supra, p. 277 ( 35 S. Ct. 383); Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 624 , 40 S. Ct. 17; Schaefer v. United States, supra, pp. 479, 480 (40 S. Ct. 259); Pierce v. United States, 252 U.S. 239, 250 , 251 S., 40 S. Ct. 205,10 and Gilbert v. Minnesota, supra, p. 333 (41 S. Ct. 125). In other words, when the legislative body has determined generally, in the constitutional exercise of its discretion, that utterances of a certain kind involve such danger of substantive evil that they may be punished, the question whether any specific utterance coming within the prohibited class is likely, in and of itself, to bring about the substantive evil, is not open to consideration. It is sufficient that the statute itself be constitutional and that the use of the language comes within its prohibition.
It is clear that the question in such cases is entirely different from that involved in those cases where the statute merely prohibits certain acts involving the danger of substantive evil, without any reference to language itself, and it is sought to apply its provisions to language [268 U.S. 652, 671] used by the defendant for the purpose of bringing about the prohibited results. There, if it be contended that the statute cannot be applied to the language used by the defendant because of its protection by the freedom of speech or press, it must necessarily be found, as an original question, without any previous determination by the legislative body, whether the specific language used involved such likelihood of bringing about the substantive evil as to deprive it of the constitutional protection. In such case it has been held that the general provisions of the statute may be constitutionally applied to the specific utterance of the defendant if its natural tendency and probable effect was to bring about the substantive evil which the legislative body might prevent. Schenck v. United States, supra, p. 51 (39 S. Ct. 247); Debs v. United States, supra, pp. 215, 216 (39 S. Ct. 252). And the general statement in the Schenck Case, p. 52 (39 S. Ct. 249) that 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,'-upon which great reliance is placed in the defendant's argument-was manifestly intended, as shown by the context, to apply only in cases of this class, and has no application to those like the present, where the legislative body itself has previously determined the danger of substantive evil arising from utterances of a specified character.
The defendant's brief does not separately discuss any of the rulings of the trial court. It is only necessary to say that, applying the general rules already stated, we find that none of them involved any invasion of the constitutional rights of the defendant. It was not necessary, within the meaning of the statute, that the defendant should have advocated 'some definite or immediate act or acts' of force, violence or unlawfulness. It was sufficient if such acts were advocated in general terms; and it was not essential that their immediate execution should [268 U.S. 652, 672] have been advocated. Nor was it necessary that the language should have been 'reasonably and ordinarily calculated to incite certain persons' to acts of force, violence or unlawfulness. The advocacy need not be addressed to specific persons. Thus, the publication and circulation of a newspaper article may be an encouragement or endeavor to persuade to murder, although not addressed to any person in particular. Queen v. Most, L. R. 7 Q. B. D. 244.
We need not enter upon a consideration of the English common law rule of seditious libel or the Federal Sedition Act of 1798,11 to which reference is made in the defendant's brief. These are so unlike the present statute, that we think the decisions under them cast no helpful light upon the questions here.
It is true that in my opinion this criterion was departed from in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 , 40 S. Ct. 17, but the convictions that I expressed in that case are too deep for it to be possible for me as yet to believe that it and Schaefer v. United States, 251 U.S. 466 , 40 S. Ct. 259, have settled the law. If what I think the correct test is applied it is manifest that there was no present danger of an attempt to overthrow the government by force on the part of the admittedly small minority who shared the defendant's views. It is said that this manifesto was more than a theory, that it was an incitement. Every idea is an incitement. It offers itself for belief and if believed it is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it or some failure of energy stifles the movement at its birth. The only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker's enthusiasm for the result. Eloquence may set fire to reason. But whatever may be thought of the redundant discourse before us it had no chance of starting a present conflagration. If in the long run the beliefs expressed in proletarian dictatorship are destined to be accepted by the dominant forces of the community, the only meaning of free speech is that they should be given their chance and have their way.
If the publication of this document had been laid as an attempt to induce an uprising against government at once and not at some indefinite time in the future it would have presented a different question. The object would have been one with which the law might deal, subject to the doubt whether there was any danger that the publication could produce any result, or in other words, whether it was not futile and too remote from possible consequences. But the indictment alleges the publication and nothing more.
[ Footnote 1 ] Laws 1909, c. 88; Consol. Laws 1909, c. 40. This statute was originally enacted in 1902. Laws 1902, c. 371.
[ Footnote 2 ] Italics are given as in the original, but the paragraphing is omitted.
'Issued on Authority of the Conference by the National Council of the Left Wing.
[ Footnote 4 ] People v. Gitlow, 195 App. Div. 773, 782, 790, 187 N. Y. S. 783, 791.
[ Footnote 5 ] Five judges, constituting the majority of the court, agreed in this view. People v. Gitlow, 234 N. Y. 132, 138, 136 N. E. 317, 320. And the two judges, constituting the minority-who dissented solely on a question as to the construction of the statute which is not here involved-said in reference to the Manifesto: 'Revolution for the purpose of overthrowing the present form and the established political system of the United States government by direct means rather than by constitutional means is therein clearly advocated and defended ...' p. 154 (136 N. E. 326).
[ Footnote 6 ] Pages 141, 142 (136 N. E. 320).
[ Footnote 7 ] Pages 149, 150 (136 N. E. 324).
[ Footnote 8 ] Exceptions to all of these rulings had been duly taken.
[ Footnote 9 ] Compare Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 , 27 S. Ct. 556, 10 Ann. Cas. 689; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 108 , 29 S. Ct. 14; Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 17 , 35 S. Ct. 240, L. R. A. 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.
[ Footnote 10 ] This reference is to so much of the decision as relates to the conviction under the third count. In considering the effect of the decisions under the Espionage Act of 1917 and the amendment of 1918, the distinction must be kept in mind between indictments under those provisions which specifically punish certain utterances, and those which merely punish specified acts in general terms, without specific reference to the use of language.
[ Footnote 11 ] Stat. 596.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.