Court Opinion

ID: 9422247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:01:51.717771+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:35.432986
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Black,
concurring.
In 1799, the English Parliament passed a law outlawing certain named societies on the ground that they were engaged in “a traitorous Conspiracy . . . in conjunction with the Persons from Time to Time exercising the Powers of Government in France . ...”1 One of the many strong arguments made by those who opposed the enactment of this law was stated by a member of that body, Mr. Tierney:
“The remedy proposed goes to the putting an end to all these societies together. I object to the system, of which this is only a branch; for the right hon. gentleman has told us he intends to propose laws from time to time upon this subject, as cases may arise to require them. I say these attempts lead to *301consequences of the most horrible kind. - I see that government are acting thus. Those whom they cannot prove to be guilty, they will punish for their suspicion. To support this system, we must have a swarm of spies and informers. They are the very pillars of such a system of government.” 2
The decision in this case, in my judgment, dramatically illustrates the continuing vitality of this observation.
The conviction of the petitioner here is being reversed because the Government has failed to produce evidence the Court believes sufficient to prove that the Communist Party presently advocates the overthrow of the Government by force. The Government is being told, in effect, that if it wishes to get convictions under the Smith Act, it must maintain a permanent staff of informers who are prepared to give up-to-date information with respect to the present policies of the Communist Party. Given the fact that such prosecutions are to be permitted at all, I do not disagree with the wisdom of the Court's decision to compel the Government to come forward with evidence to prove its charges in each particular case. But I think that it is also important to realize the overriding pre-eminence that such a system of laws gives to the perpetuation and encouragement of the practice of informing — a practice which, I think it is fair to say, has not always been considered the sort of system to which a wise government *302would entrust the security of a Nation. I have always thought, as I still do think, that this Government was built upon a foundation strong enough to assure its endurance without resort to practices which most of us think of as being associated only with totalitarian governments.
I cannot join an opinion which implies that the existence of liberty is dependent upon the efficiency of the Government’s informers. I prefer to rest my concurrence in the judgment reversing petitioner’s conviction on what I regard as the more solid ground that the First Amendment forbids the Government to abridge the rights of freedom of speech, press and assembly.

 39 George III, c. 79. For a more complete discussion of the provisions of this law and the arguments surrounding its enactment, see my dissenting opinion in Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, decided today, ante, p. 1, at 151-154, 162.

 See Parliamentary Debates, Hansard, 1st Series, 34, at 991. Cf. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 365: “The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government.”