Gitlow v. New York

Citations: 268 U.S. 652; 45 S. Ct. 625; 69 L. Ed. 1138; 1925 U.S. LEXIS 598Docket: 19

Court: Supreme Court of the United States; June 8, 1925; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Benjamin Gitlow was indicted for criminal anarchy under New York Penal Law for advocating the overthrow of organized government through force or violence, as outlined in statutes Sec. 160 and Sec. 161. He was separately tried, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment, with his conviction upheld by both the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals. The case reached the Supreme Court on a writ of error, where Gitlow contended that the statute violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The indictment comprised two counts: the first charged Gitlow with advocating the overthrow of government through writings titled "The Left Wing Manifesto," while the second accused him of printing and distributing "The Revolutionary Age," which contained similar advocacy. The trial established that Gitlow was affiliated with the Left Wing Section of the Socialist Party, a faction formed in opposition to the party's moderate policies. He was directly involved in the publication of the Left Wing Manifesto as a member of a National Council and as the business manager of "The Revolutionary Age," where he oversaw the printing and distribution of 16,000 copies of the manifesto and related materials.

Employees directed by the defendant wrapped and mailed copies of the Manifesto, which were also sold from the office. The defendant subscribed to the Manifesto and Program of the Left Wing, spoke to various branches of the Socialist Party promoting its principles, and was acknowledged as responsible for the Manifesto's content and its circulation. However, no evidence was presented to show any consequences from its publication. The Manifesto criticized moderate Socialism for relying on democratic methods and advocated for a Communist Revolution through revolutionary Socialism and class struggle, urging the use of mass industrial revolts and political strikes to dismantle the parliamentary state and establish a proletarian dictatorship.

During the trial, the defendant's counsel objected to the evidence, claiming the Manifesto did not violate the law and that the statute infringed on due process rights. These objections were denied. At the trial's conclusion, motions to dismiss the indictment and acquit the defendant were also denied, citing similar grounds. The court instructed the jury to assess the intent and meaning of the Manifesto based on ordinary understanding, clarifying that a mere analysis of social facts without advocacy for unlawful action does not constitute an offense under the statute. The jury was told that if they had reasonable doubt regarding the Manifesto's advocacy for unlawful acts to overthrow the government, the defendant should be acquitted.

Defendant's counsel submitted two requests to charge, asserting that criminal anarchy requires language advocating or advising specific acts of force or violence aimed at overthrowing organized government. These requests were denied beyond the existing charges. Two additional requests claimed that to establish guilt, the language must be capable of inciting individuals to commit acts of violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government, which were also denied. The Appellate Division highlighted excerpts from the Manifesto and related Communist programs, concluding that they advocated the overthrow of U.S. governments not through democratic means but through organizing the industrial proletariat for mass strikes and potential violence. The articles were deemed to promote a calculated plan to stop governmental functions and establish a proletarian dictatorship, rather than merely discussing theories. The Court of Appeals determined that the Manifesto advocated violent or unlawful means to overthrow the government, emphasizing that the jury was justified in viewing it as a call to action that threatened the rights of other classes and the stability of the state. The court found no need for explicit advocacy of violence, as the inherent implications of the proposed actions were clear. Both the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the relevant statute. The appeal focused solely on the trial court's specific rulings, with no challenge to the jury's verdict.

The central argument asserts that the statute penalizes mere expressions of doctrine without demonstrating any evidence of incitement or likelihood of harmful outcomes, thus violating the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It contends that the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment encompasses free speech and press, which can only be restricted in contexts likely to result in substantive evil. The statute in question does not punish abstract discussions or lawful advocacy for governmental change; it specifically targets language that encourages the unlawful overthrow of government. The trial judge instructed the jury that historical discussions lacking incitement do not violate the statute. The Manifesto, however, is characterized as a call to action promoting mass industrial unrest and revolutionary measures aimed at dismantling parliamentary governance, thus constituting direct incitement to unlawful acts, which is incompatible with a constitutional framework that upholds law and order.

The jury was justified in concluding that the Manifesto promoted not just the theoretical idea of violently overthrowing organized government but also urged action towards that goal. It is accepted that freedom of speech and press, safeguarded by the First Amendment, is a fundamental right protected from state infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment. However, this freedom is not absolute; it does not grant immunity for irresponsible speech or allow individuals to escape accountability for harmful expressions. Historical legal precedent establishes that states can regulate and punish speech that threatens public welfare, morality, or peace. Courts have ruled that states may penalize publications that advocate violations of law or undermine national interests, including efforts to disrupt the government or incite violence. Thus, speech that seeks to overthrow the government by unlawful means is not protected, as maintaining the state's integrity and security is paramount.

A state has the authority to penalize expressions that advocate the violent overthrow of the government, as these pose a substantial threat to public safety and order. This principle is supported by various legal precedents, which emphasize that the freedom of speech does not extend to actions that undermine constitutional governance. In assessing the validity of such statutes, courts assume a presumption of constitutionality, allowing states to act in the interest of public welfare without being deemed arbitrary or unreasonable.

The state is deemed the primary judge of the regulations necessary for public safety, and it can act preemptively against expressions that may incite violence or revolution, even if the potential for harm is not immediately evident. The courts recognize that a single incendiary statement could ignite widespread unrest, justifying the state’s proactive measures to prevent such outcomes. Legislative bodies are empowered to prohibit advocacy for the overthrow of government without waiting for imminent threats to materialize, affirming the constitutionality of such statutes as legitimate exercises of police power.

The legal principle asserts that any utterance, regardless of its perceived triviality, may fall under statutory prohibition if it is intended to bring about a substantive evil. The statute's constitutionality is paramount, and once the legislative body has classified certain utterances as dangerous, individual instances do not require further examination of their potential for harm. This contrasts with cases where the statute addresses actions rather than explicit language; in those scenarios, a determination must be made on whether the specific language poses a clear and present danger of causing substantive evil, requiring original consideration of its constitutional protection. The text cites several cases, including Fox v. Washington and Schenck v. United States, to demonstrate that the nature and context of the words used are crucial in assessing danger. Additionally, the defendant's arguments regarding the need for advocating specific or immediate unlawful acts are dismissed; general advocacy suffices, indicating that even indirect encouragement through publications can be seen as incitement to violence. The court concludes that the trial court's rulings did not infringe upon the defendant's constitutional rights.

The court does not find it necessary to analyze the English common law of seditious libel or the Federal Sedition Act of 1798, as these legal frameworks are not relevant to the current statute. The court concludes that the statute is constitutional and has not infringed upon any constitutional rights in this case, thereby affirming the Court of Appeals' judgment. Justice Holmes, dissenting, argues that the principle of free speech is inherent in the Fourteenth Amendment, suggesting a broader interpretation than that applied to federal laws. He references the "clear and present danger" test from Schenck v. United States, asserting that in this case, the defendant's views did not pose an immediate threat to government stability. Holmes contends that while all ideas can serve as incitement, the expression of opinions should be protected unless they incite immediate action. He emphasizes that the indictment only addresses the publication of the manifesto without alleging an intent to incite immediate rebellion. The manifesto itself claims that capitalism is collapsing and advocates for a Communist Revolution, asserting that true Socialism must align with revolutionary class struggle to avoid becoming ineffective or reactionary.

The Russian Revolution marked a significant uprising of the proletariat against war and Imperialism, leading to the Bolshevik-led establishment of a proletarian dictatorship through the principle of "all power to the Soviets." Revolutionary Socialism fundamentally opposes Moderate Socialism's view that a bourgeois democratic parliamentary state is essential for introducing Socialism. Instead, it argues for the destruction of the parliamentary state and the creation of a new state organized by producers, aimed at eliminating bourgeois political power and establishing a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. 

In the context of the United States, where Imperialism is prevalent and capitalism has strengthened rather than weakened since the war, the current phase is characterized not by revolution but by revolutionary struggle. Strikes are emerging that reflect the potential for revolutionary action, with striking workers attempting to assume municipal government roles, as seen in Seattle and Winnipeg. These mass strikes are poised to become a defining aspect of proletarian action and should be harnessed to pursue broader political objectives, ultimately culminating in a political strike against capitalism and the state.

Revolutionary Socialism aims to leverage the ongoing mass industrial revolts to mobilize the unorganized industrial proletariat, forming the basis for a militant Socialism. The movement emphasizes the necessity of revolutionary industrial unionism and the class struggle, which is inherently political, targeting the overthrow of the capitalist organization and the establishment of a new social system. The ultimate goal is not merely to capture but to conquer and abolish the bourgeois parliamentary state, facilitating the proletariat's acquisition of state power.

Revolutionary Socialism rejects the notion of achieving socialism through legislative means within the existing bourgeois state, advocating instead for political action by the proletariat aimed at seizing state power. It emphasizes the importance of class struggle and views parliamentary action as a tool for agitation rather than a means to power. The true power of the proletariat lies in the political mass strike, where industrial strength is mobilized for political ends, ultimately leading to the overthrow of capitalism. The revolutionary process begins with protests and escalates through mass political strikes to the full realization of revolutionary action to capture state power.

Revolutionary Socialism contends that the existing bourgeois parliamentary state serves to oppress the proletariat and must be destroyed. In its place, the proletariat must establish its own state, characterized as a revolutionary dictatorship, to suppress the bourgeoisie. This new state will be formed from the industrially organized producers, such as industrial unions or Soviets, and is essential for realizing socialism. The dictatorship of the proletariat will dismantle the old state while simultaneously constructing a new system focused on managing production rather than governing individuals. This transition leads to the establishment of a structure of Communist Socialism based on workers' control of industry, promoting industrial self-governance among producers.

Completion of the described structure entails the total economic and political expropriation of the bourgeoisie, leading to the conclusion of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the establishment of comprehensive social and individual autonomy under a Communist regime. This transition is characterized not as an immediate revolution but as part of an ongoing revolutionary struggle against Capitalism, which could extend over many years. The Communist International presents a policy that addresses both immediate and ultimate goals, advocating for a direct class struggle against Capitalism and the ultimate seizure of power. The current decay of the old order and the collapse of civilization necessitate the proletarian revolution and the reconstruction of society along Communist lines. Furthermore, historical context is provided with references to the 1919 Winnipeg strike, which significantly disrupted essential services. The court rulings in People v. Gitlow highlight the advocacy of revolution to overthrow the U.S. political system through direct action, which was supported by a majority of judges, while a dissenting minority raised concerns about the interpretation of the statute involved. The summary also references various legal precedents and distinctions relevant to the case's context, particularly regarding the Espionage Act and the nature of indictments based on speech versus actions.