Suchergebnisse
Suchergebnisse:
Benjamin Gitlow (December 22, 1891 – July 19, 1965) was a prominent American socialist politician of the early 20th century and a founding member of the Communist Party USA.
- office created
Benjamin Gitlow, a member of the Socialist Party of America, who had served in the New York State Assembly, was charged with criminal anarchy under New York's Criminal Anarchy Law of 1902 for publishing in July 1919 a document called "Left wing manifesto" in The Revolutionary Age, a newspaper for
- Holmes, joined by Brandeis
- None
- Sanford, joined by Taft, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland, Butler, Stone
- Benjamin Gitlow v. People of the State of New York
Facts of the case. Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested in 1919 for distributing a “Left Wing Manifesto" that called for the establishment of socialism through strikes and class action of any form. Gitlow was convicted under New York’s Criminal Anarchy Law, which punished advocating the overthrow of the government by force.
The case arose in November 1919 when Benjamin Gitlow, who had served as a New York state assemblyman, and an associate, Alan Larkin, were arrested by New York City police officers for criminal anarchy, an offense under New York state law.
- The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
Gitlow v. New York —decided in 1925—was the first Supreme Court decision applying the First Amendment’s free speech protections to abuses by state governments. There, Benjamin Gitlow was arrested for distributing a “Left-Wing Manifesto,” which advocated socialism in America.
After President William McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist in Buffalo in 1901, the state of New York passed a Criminal Anarchy Law. A socialist named Benjamin Gitlow, who worked for a newspaper called The Revolutionary Age, was charged under this law for publishing an essay in the newspaper called Left Wing Manifesto in 1919. This ...
A 1925 case of a Socialist leader convicted of criminal anarchy for advocating the overthrow of organized government by force or violence. The court held that the statute was repugnant to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the advocacy was not a crime. The case is relevant for its discussion of the definition, history and application of criminal anarchy and the due process clause.
