Gitlow v. New York (1900)
- Docket
- 19
- Decided
- 1900-1940-
Summary
Question: Does the First Amendment prevent a state from punishing political speech that directly advocates the government's violent overthrow? Conclusion: In an opinion authored by Justice Edward Sanford, the Court concluded that New York could prohibit advocating violent efforts to overthrow the government under the Criminal Anarchy Law. Citing Schenck and Abrams , the Court reasoned the government could punish speech that threatens its basic existence because of the national security implications. Despite the small scale of Gitlow’s actions, the majority was not persuaded that they were too insignificant to have an impact. The Supreme Court previously held, in Barron v. Baltimore (1833), that the Constitution's Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. Gitlow partly reversed that precedent and established that while the Bill of Rights was designed to limit the power of the federal government, the incorporation principle allows it to be applied to states. In dissent, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes held that Gitlow had not violated the clear and present danger test used in Schenck . Since Gitlow’s call to action was abstract and would not resonate with a large number of people, Holmes concluded that there was not sufficient imminence to warrant punishing the speech.