RESEARCH STARTER

Gitlow v. New York

Gitlow v. New York was a landmark 1925 Supreme Court case that addressed the balance between free speech and state interests. Benjamin Gitlow, a socialist, was convicted for distributing a pamphlet that advocated strikes and class action, which the state deemed a potential threat to public safety. The case marked a significant moment in the application of the First Amendment, as it was the first time the Supreme Court ruled that freedom of speech and press protections applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's incorporation doctrine. Although Gitlow's attorney, Walter H. Pollak, argued passionately for the rights of free expression, the majority of the Court upheld Gitlow's conviction, suggesting that his pamphlet posed a "real danger" to society. Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis D. Brandeis dissented, emphasizing a distinction between speech and action and arguing that Gitlow's words did not incite immediate illegal action. This case set a precedent for future discussions on the limits of free speech and the state's role in regulating it, remaining a foundational reference point in American constitutional law. Ultimately, Gitlow v. New York highlights the ongoing tension between individual rights and societal safety in the context of political expression.

Full Article

DATE: June 8, 1925

CITATION: 268 U.S. 652

ISSUE: Freedom of speech

SIGNIFICANCE: Although the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man for writing and distributing a socialist pamphlet, it determined that the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech is so central to the notion of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment that it must be required of the states under the incorporation doctrine.

Justice Edward T. Sanford wrote the opinion for the 7-2 majority upholding the conviction of a socialist, Benjamin Gitlow, for writing and distributing a pamphlet advocating strikes, socialism, and class action in “any form.” American Civil Liberties Union attorney Walter H. Pollak defended Gitlow, making a strong case for freedom of expression and succeeding in persuading a unanimous Court to apply the freedom of speech and press sections of the First Amendment to the states through the incorporation doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment. He failed, however, to get his client’s conviction overturned because the majority thought that Gitlow’s pamphlet could be a “spark” that could create a real danger to society.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes dissented, arguing that Gitlow’s pamphlet was not likely to incite action and using his clear and present danger doctrine, which distinguished between speech and action. Justice Louis D. Brandeis joined Holmes’s dissent. Gitlow remained a theoretical issue until the Court struck down a state law for violating free speech rights in Stromberg v. California (1931).



Full Article

DATE: June 8, 1925

CITATION: 268 U.S. 652

ISSUE: Freedom of speech

SIGNIFICANCE: Although the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man for writing and distributing a socialist pamphlet, it determined that the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech is so central to the notion of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment that it must be required of the states under the incorporation doctrine.

Justice Edward T. Sanford wrote the opinion for the 7-2 majority upholding the conviction of a socialist, Benjamin Gitlow, for writing and distributing a pamphlet advocating strikes, socialism, and class action in “any form.” American Civil Liberties Union attorney Walter H. Pollak defended Gitlow, making a strong case for freedom of expression and succeeding in persuading a unanimous Court to apply the freedom of speech and press sections of the First Amendment to the states through the incorporation doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment. He failed, however, to get his client’s conviction overturned because the majority thought that Gitlow’s pamphlet could be a “spark” that could create a real danger to society.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes dissented, arguing that Gitlow’s pamphlet was not likely to incite action and using his clear and present danger doctrine, which distinguished between speech and action. Justice Louis D. Brandeis joined Holmes’s dissent. Gitlow remained a theoretical issue until the Court struck down a state law for violating free speech rights in Stromberg v. California (1931).



More Like ThisRelated Articles

Related Articles (5)

Related Articles (5)