- Date:
- June 8, 1925
Gitlow v. New York
-
What was Gitlow v. New York?
In Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment's free speech protections apply to state governments via the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.
The case originated from Benjamin Gitlow's conviction for violating New York's criminal anarchy law by publishing a radical newspaper advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. Although the Court upheld Gitlow's conviction, it established that the First Amendment applies to state governments.
However, the Court rejected the "clear and present danger" test from Schenck v. U.S. (1919), using the "bad tendency" test, allowing speech restriction if it threatens potential violence. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., dissented, maintaining the "clear and present danger" test, but the ruling was later dismissed as the Court became more restrictive regarding the types of speech that government could permissibly suppress.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Who was Benjamin Gitlow and why was he on trial?
Benjamin Gitlow, a former New York state assemblyman and Communist Party member, was arrested in November 1919 for criminal anarchy under New York state law. This stemmed from his publication of "The Left-Wing Manifesto" in The Revolutionary Age, advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government.
In Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction in 1925, arguing that the state could suppress speech that threatens danger, even if it doesn't pose an immediate risk. However, the Court also held that the First Amendment's free speech protections apply to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. This was the first time the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause requires state and federal governments to be held to the same standards in regulating speech.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What law did Gitlow break according to New York?
Benjamin Gitlow was arrested in 1919 for violating New York state law against criminal anarchy. As a member of the Communist Party, Gitlow published The Revolutionary Age, a radical newspaper that advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. He was convicted, even though he argued that the article did not lead to any violent action.
The Supreme Court upheld Gitlow's conviction, stating that New York's law was constitutional because the state could suppress the "threatened danger in its incipiency". The Court rejected the "clear and present danger" test from Schenck v. U.S. (1919), and instead used the "bad tendency" test, which allowed prohibitions on speech that simply advocated potential violence.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How did this case involve freedom of speech?
The Gitlow v. New York case concerned freedom of speech because Benjamin Gitlow, a Communist Party member, was convicted under New York's Criminal Anarchy Law for publishing a manifesto advocating the violent overthrow of the government.
The Supreme Court, in its 1925 ruling, addressed whether Gitlow's pamphlet, The Left-Wing Manifesto, was constitutionally protected speech. Although the Court upheld Gitlow's conviction, it also stated that the First Amendment's free speech protections apply to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, setting a precedent for future free speech cases.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What did the Supreme Court decide in Gitlow v. New York?
In Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment's free speech protections apply to state governments via the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.
Benjamin Gitlow, a Communist Party member, was convicted under New York law for advocating the violent overthrow of the government in his newspaper. The Court upheld Gitlow's conviction but also expanded free speech protections, stating that the First Amendment applies to states.
However, the Court rejected the "clear and present danger" test from Schenck v. U.S. (1919) and used the "bad tendency" test, allowing the suppression of speech that merely advocates potential violence. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., dissented, arguing that there was no immediate danger from Gitlow's views. The "bad tendency" test was later dismissed by the Court as it became more restrictive regarding speech suppression.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Why is Gitlow v. New York important for understanding how the Bill of Rights applies to states?
Gitlow v. New York is a landmark case because it established that the First Amendment's free speech protections apply to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. This was the first time the Supreme Court held that state and federal governments must adhere to the same standards regarding speech regulation.
Although the Court upheld Gitlow’s conviction, the ruling expanded free speech protections. The Court stated that freedom of speech and the press are among the fundamental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from state impairment. This concept is known as "selective incorporation".
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
Gitlow v. New York, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 8, 1925, that the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protection of free speech, which states that the federal “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,” applies also to state governments. The decision was the first in which the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause requires state and federal governments to be held to the same standards in regulating speech.
The case arose in November 1919 when Benjamin Gitlow, who had served as a New York state assemblyman, and an associate, Alan Larkin, were arrested by New York City police officers for criminal anarchy, an offense under New York state law. Gitlow and Larkin were both Communist Party members and publishers of The Revolutionary Age, a radical newspaper in which they printed “The Left Wing Manifesto” (modeled on The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels), which advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. Although Gitlow argued at trial that no violent action was precipitated by the article, he was convicted, and the conviction was subsequently upheld by the state appellate court.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in April and November 1923 and issued its ruling, written by Justice Edward T. Sanford, in June 1925. The Court upheld Gitlow’s conviction, but perhaps ironically the ruling expanded free speech protections for individuals, since the court held that the First Amendment was applicable to state governments through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion stipulated that the Court “assume[s] that freedom of speech and of the press which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress are among the fundamental personal rights and ‘liberties’ protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States.” In ruling that the conviction was constitutional, however, the Court rejected the “clear and present danger” test established in Schenck v. U.S. (1919) and instead used the “bad (or dangerous) tendency” test. The New York state law was constitutional because the state “cannot reasonably be required to defer the adoption of measures for its own peace and safety until the revolutionary utterances lead to actual disturbances of the public peace or imminent and immediate danger of its own destruction; but it may, in the exercise of its judgment, suppress the threatened danger in its incipiency.” In an eloquent dissenting opinion joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., held to the clear and present danger test that he had articulated in his majority opinion in Schenck, arguing 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.…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.…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.…But the indictment alleges the publication and nothing more.
The ruling, which enabled prohibitions on speech that simply advocated potential violence, was eventually dismissed by the Supreme Court in the 1930s and later as the Court became more restrictive regarding the types of speech that government could permissibly suppress.