Talk:Gitlow v. New York

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Freedom of speech Mid‑importance

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JacobWilt.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know

I don't know how to format this well, but Today 2/19 I deleted the obvious spam on the page, I think some of the actual content was delete. Cameron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.233.199 (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what were two or three main argument given to support the decision ?

OReich:

I read Gitlow v. New York, via the page's link. Despite popular opinion, including that scholars and judges, and despite subsequent rulings saying otherwise, Gitlow v. New York DOES NOT EXTEND FREE SPEECH TO THE STATES.

In deciding the case, the Court had to consider two questions: 1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause extend the Bill of Rights' Free Speech protections from the Federal Government to the State Governments? 2. Were the statements of the accused speech protected by Free Speech protections (the "can't shout fire in a crowded theater" argument)?

The Supreme Court did not need to consider the first question, because the Supreme Court's answer to the second question was decisive on its own: because the accused's statements were not protected by free speech anyway, it did not matter if the State Governments had to protect Free Speech.

This is the text in Gitlow v. New York concerning Incorporation and the Due Process Clause (I added the capitalization):

"FOR PRESENT PURPOSES we may and do assume 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. WE DO NOT REGARD THE INCIDENTAL STATEMENT in Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek (259 U.S. 530, 543 , 42 S. Ct. 516, 27 A. L. R. 27) that the Fourteenth Amendment imposes no restrictions on the States concerning freedom of speech, AS DETERMINATIVE OF THIS QUESTION."

The opinion, in that parapraph, states that whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause extends Free Speech and Freedom of the Press, the Court would still rule against the accused, because (as explained later in the opinion), his statements are not covered by Free Speech anyways ("Can't shout fire in a crowded theater" logic).

That paragraph from the opinion is not ambiguous in its meaning, nor in its logic. The Supreme Court did not need to consider whether or not Free Speech had to be protected by the states. The ruling states that prior positions taken ("the incidental statement...") are not "determinative of this question."

The paragraph also states that they will assume the Due Process Clause incorporation argument "for present purposes," meaning because that assumption aids them in this case, not because the incorporation argument is actually correct, let alone empirically correct. If it were emppirically correct, they would not say "for present purposes."

Further, it claims to "not regard" statements in other cases. When the Supreme Court contradicts prior rulings, they don't simply mention this contradiction, they explicitly correct and overturn those prior rulings.

Why is it the opinion of ALL scholars that Gitlow v. New York extends Free Speech to the states? Could it simply be a result of misreporting by the media initially, combined with subsequent Supreme Court opinions claiming this to be true? I don't know. I'm not arguing whether or not the Supreme Court's ruling was correct; I'm simply stating WHAT the Supreme Court is ruling in the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OReich (talk • contribs) 23:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear and Present Danger Clause/Bad Tendency Test

Hi! I just wiki'ed this "bad tendency test" thing, and it turns out to be identical to the "clear and present danger" test established by Schenck v. United States. How did the "bad tendency test" come out of the Abrams v. United States case, then? Please straighten this out.

Thanks,

Yu Han —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.68.211 (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any rulings later?

Did the Supreme Court ever revisit this issue later? It seems to have a very negative effect on First Amendment rights, so I wondered if it had ever been challenged in more modern times. It also seems rather contradictory, given that the U.S. was formed by people advocating the violent overthrow of their government. - Connelly (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I found the Smith Act, which revisited this issue. - Connelly (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gitlow v. New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051001044148/http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Gitlow_v_NY to http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Gitlow_v_NY

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Miguel' is not a state

I don't think the full name of this case is 'Benjamin Gitlow v. People of the State of Miguel.' Can someone confirm? WhittleMario (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]