Gitlow v. New York: The Evolution of Free Speech and the Incorporation Doctrine

The landmark Supreme Court case of Gitlow v. New York in 1925 stands as a significant turning point in the interpretation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This case marked the beginning of the incorporation doctrine, where the Court applied the protections of the Bill of Rights to state governments. Gitlow v. New York not only affirmed the importance of free speech but also established the legal precedent that the fundamental liberties enshrined in the Constitution extend to the actions of state governments.

This essay will explore the background, key arguments, and lasting impacts of the Gitlow decision.

The case of Gitlow v. New York revolved around the arrest and conviction of Benjamin Gitlow, a socialist organizer and publisher, for distributing left-wing manifestos that advocated for the overthrow of the government. Gitlow was charged under New York's Criminal Anarchy Law, which criminalized the advocacy of violent overthrow of the government. Gitlow's defense argued that his First Amendment rights to free speech and press were violated by the state's law.

Get quality help now

writer-Charlotte

Verified writer

Proficient in: Law

4.7 (348)

“ Amazing as always, gave her a week to finish a big assignment and came through way ahead of time. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

The central issue before the Court was whether the First Amendment's protection of free speech applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gitlow's defense contended that the state law infringed upon his freedom of expression, while the prosecution argued that the state had the authority to suppress speech advocating the violent overthrow of the government to protect public order and safety.

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Gitlow but significantly altered the legal landscape surrounding free speech.

The Court held that the First Amendment applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the Court upheld Gitlow's conviction, it established the "clear and present danger" test, which set the standard for determining when speech could be restricted by the government. According to this test, speech that presents a clear and present danger of inciting imminent lawless action is not protected by the First Amendment.

Gitlow v. New York had far-reaching consequences for the interpretation of free speech and the application of the Bill of Rights to state governments. The case marked the first instance of selective incorporation, whereby the Supreme Court began the process of extending the protections of the Bill of Rights to the actions of state governments. This expansion of constitutional rights helped ensure that citizens' fundamental liberties were not violated solely by federal laws but also by state legislation.

Furthermore, Gitlow v. New York played a vital role in shaping the subsequent evolution of First Amendment jurisprudence. The "clear and present danger" test established in this case provided a framework for evaluating the limits of free speech and has been applied in various subsequent decisions. While Gitlow's conviction was upheld, the Court's recognition of the importance of protecting speech even when advocating unpopular or radical ideas laid the foundation for future cases that expanded the boundaries of protected speech.

Gitlow v. New York represents a significant milestone in the development of constitutional law in the United States. The case affirmed that the fundamental rights enshrined in the First Amendment, including free speech, are protected from state infringement through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The decision not only expanded individual liberties but also established a precedent for the incorporation of constitutional rights into state actions. Gitlow's legacy continues to resonate today, shaping the ongoing debates surrounding free speech and the delicate balance between public order and individual rights.