what was the ruling in dennis v united states

Dennis v. United States , 341 U.S. 494 (1951), was a United States Supreme Court case relating to Eugene Dennis , General Secretary of the Communist Party USA . The Court ruled that Dennis did not have the right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to exercise free speech, publication and assembly, if the exercise involved the creation of a plot to overthrow the government. [1]

Full Answer

What is the significance of the Dennis v Dennis case?

Dennis v. United States Dennis v. United States, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 4, 1951, upheld the constitutionality of the Smith Act (1940), which made it a criminal offense to advocate the violent overthrow of the government or to organize or be a member of any group or society devoted to such advocacy.

What was the Smith Act in Dennis v Dennis?

Smith Act. Supreme Court in Dennis v. United States (1951). In a later case, Yates v. United States (1957), the court offset that ruling somewhat by adopting a strict reading of the advocacy provision, construing “advocacy” to mean only urging that includes incitement to unlawful action.….

What did the Supreme Court rule in Brandenburg v Dennis?

The Court ruled that Dennis did not have the right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to exercise free speech, publication and assembly, if the exercise involved the creation of a plot to overthrow the government. In 1969, Brandenburg v. Ohio de facto overruled Dennis .

What happened in the Yates v Dennis case?

In 1957, the Court in Yates v. United States restricted the holding in Dennis, ruling that the Smith Act did not prohibit advocacy of forcible overthrow of the government as an abstract doctrine. While Yates did not overrule Dennis, it rendered the broad conspiracy provisions of the Smith Act unenforceable.

What was the decision in Dennis v United States?

In a 6-to-2 decision, the Court upheld the convictions of the Communist Party leaders and found that the Smith Act did not "inherently" violate the First Amendment.

What did the United States Supreme Court rule in the case of Dennis v United States 1951 )? Quizlet?

The Court ruled that Dennis did not have the right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to exercise free speech, publication and assembly, if the exercise involved the creation of a plot to overthrow the government.

What happened to the clear and present danger test in Dennis v United States 1951?

United States (1951) In Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951), the Supreme Court applied the clear and present danger test to uphold the convictions of 11 U.S.-based communists for their political teachings.

Who was the defendant in Dennis v United States?

Eugene DennisUnited States. Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951), was a United States Supreme Court case relating to Eugene Dennis, General Secretary of the Communist Party USA.

Who wrote the majority decision in Dennis v United States?

371. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Abe Fortas, argued that the conspiracy of filing the false affidavits was intentional and that the events of filing the affidavits and using the NLRB facilities together were a "concert of action" with the purpose of defrauding the Government.

What happened to Eugene Dennis?

Dennis died of cancer on January 31, 1961.

What is the clear and present danger rule?

The clear and present danger test features two independent conditions: first, the speech must impose a threat that a substantive evil might follow, and second, the threat is a real, imminent threat. The court had to identify and quantify both the nature of the threatened evil and the imminence of the perceived danger.

What was the effect of the clear and present danger ruling?

The Court ruled in Schenck v. United States (1919) that speech creating a “clear and present danger” is not protected under the First Amendment. This decision shows how the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment sometimes sacrifices individual freedoms in order to preserve social order.

What is the major problem with the clear and present danger test?

This test assumes that at some point speech transforms into an act and at that moment the speech becomes punishable. Under the clear and present danger test, the First Amendment does not protect speech that is an incitement to imminent law- less action.

Does the Smith Act violate the First Amendment?

367 U. S. 224-228. (c) As construed and applied, the membership clause of the Smith Act does not infringe freedom of political expression and association in violation of the First Amendment.

What were the communists in Russia called?

In this context, in 1918, RSDLP(b) became All-Russian Communist Party (bolsheviks). Outside of Russia, social-democrats who supported the Soviet government began to identify as communists, while those who opposed it retained the social-democratic label.

Where does the phrase clear and present danger come from?

The concept of "clear and present danger" is a rationale for the limitation of free speech originated in a majority opinion written in 1919 by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

When was the clear and present danger test established?

1919Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes defined the clear and present danger test in 1919 in Schenck v.

Which conduct did the U.S. Supreme Court determine was a clear and present danger in this case?

Schenck v. United States (1919), the Supreme Court invented the famous "clear and present danger" test to determine when a state could constitutionally limit an individual's free speech rights under the First Amendment.

What is clear and present danger quizlet?

Clear and Present Danger. Doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States to determine under what circumstances limits can be placed on First Amendment freedoms of speech, press or assembly.

How does the clear and present danger rule help the courts to determine whether speech is seditious?

How does the "clear and present danger" rule help the courts to determine whether speech is seditious? It says that speech can be outlawed if it is likely to lead to a criminal act.

What was the Supreme Court case in Dennis v. United States?

494) Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951), was a United States Supreme Court case relating to Eugene Dennis, General Secretary of the Communist Party USA. The Court ruled that Dennis did not have the right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to exercise free speech, ...

How did the defense antagonize the judge?

The defense deliberately antagonized the judge by making a large number of objections and motions, which led to numerous bitter engagements between the attorneys and Judge Medina. Out of the chaos, an atmosphere of "mutual hostility" arose between the judge and attorneys. Medina came to believe that the defense attorneys were using the trial as an opportunity to publicize communist propaganda, and that they deliberately disrupted the trial using any means they could. Judge Medina attempted to maintain order by removing defendants who were out of order. In the course of the trial, Medina sent five of the defendants to jail for outbursts. Several times in July and August, the judge held defense attorneys in contempt of court, and told them their punishment would be meted out upon conclusion of the trial.

What was the CPUSA's strategy?

The defense employed a three-pronged strategy: First, portraying the CPUSA as a conventional political party, which promoted socialism by peaceful means; second, employing the "labor defense" tactic to attack the trial as a capitalist venture which could never provide a fair outcome to proletarian defendants; and third, using the trial as an opportunity to publicize CPUSA policies.

What did the prosecution argue about the texts?

The prosecution argued that the texts advocated violent revolution, and that by adopting the texts as their political foundation, the defendants were also personally guilty of advocating violent overthrow of the government.

What does the court have to ask about the gravity of the evil?

In each case [courts] must ask whether the gravity of the "evil", discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as necessary to avoid the danger.

What was the Smith Act case?

Background of the case. Main article: Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders. In 1948, eleven Communist Party leaders were convicted of advocating the violent overthrow of the US government and for the violation of several points of the Smith Act. The party members who had been petitioning for socialist reforms claimed ...

Which court affirmed the Smith Act?

Petitioners were found guilty by the trial court and the decision was affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court granted writ of certiorari, but limited it to whether section two or three of the Smith Act violated the First Amendment and whether the same two sections violated the First and Fifth Amendments because of indefiniteness.

What was the ruling in Yates v. United States?

In Yates v. United States (1957), the court later amended its ruling to make parts of the Smith Act unenforceable , and though the law remained on the books, no prosecutions took place under it thereafter. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica This article was most recently revised and updated by Amy Tikkanen, Corrections Manager.

What did Frankfurter argue about the free speech rule?

Frankfurter, in particular, argued that Congress needed to balance free speech protections against the threat of that speech. The court’s opinion ran somewhat contrary to the clear and present danger rule of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in Schenck v.

What is an encyclopedia editor?

Encyclopaedia Britannica's editors oversee subject areas in which they have extensive knowledge, whether from years of experience gained by working on that content or via study for an advanced degree. ...

Which case validated the federal government’s requirement (1947) that federal employees pledge loyalty to the U.S.?

United States) and upheld Truman’s loyalty program in the case of Joint Anti-fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, which validated the federal government’s requirement (1947) that federal employees pledge loyalty to the U.S. government and the establishment of loyalty boards to investigate potential disloyalty.…. Smith Act.

Does the First Amendment protect freedom of speech?

So long as this Court exercises the power of judicial reviewof legislation, I cannot agree that the First Amendment permits us to sustain laws suppressing freedom of speech and press on the basis of Congress’ or our own notions of mere ‘reasonableness.’ Such a doctrine waters down the First Amendment so that it amounts to little more than an admonitionto Congress. The Amendment as so construed is not likely to protect any but those ‘safe’ or orthodox views which rarely need its protection.…Public opinion being what it now is, few will protest the conviction of these Communist petitioners. There is hope, however, that, in calmer times, when present pressures, passions and fears subside, this or some later Court will restore the First Amendment liberties to the high preferred place where they belong in a free society.

Who dissented from the majority?

Dissenting from the majority were Hugo L. Black, who had developed a literal interpretation of the Bill of Rights and an absolutist position on First Amendmentrights, and William O. Douglas. Black’s eloquentopinion both captured the tenor of the times and was a strong defense of freedom of speech:

Who was the general secretary of the Communist Party?

The case originated in 1948 when Eugene Dennis, general secretary of the American Communist Party, along with several other high-ranking communists, was arrested and convicted of having violated the Smith Act. The convictionwas upheld by lower courts, despite the fact that no evidence existed that Dennis and his colleagues had encouraged any of their followers to commit specific violent acts, and was appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

Why were petitioners charged under the Smith Act?

Petitioners were charged and convicted under the Smith Act for advocating the overthrow of the Government by force or violence. Petitioners were organizing meetings of Communist members. Petitioners challenged the Smith Act on First Amendment grounds. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.

What is the crime in the petitioners case?

The crime in this case was that petitioners “agreed to assemble and to talk and publish certain ideas at a later date.” That is simply a virulent form of prior censorship of speech, which the First Amendment forbids.

What was the purpose of the Smith Act?

Specifically, they were alleged to have conspired to organize a group to teach and advocate the overthrow of the government.

What was the petitioner charged with?

However, petitioners were charged with a conspiracy to form a party and groups of people to teach Communist doctrine , not a “conspiracy to overthrow” the government.

What are the three principles that arise from the Court’s precedents?

The three principles that arise from the Court’s precedents are (i) free speech cases do not call upon the Court to be legislators, (ii) the “clear and present danger” test includes an analysis of many factors, and (iii) not all speech is protected.

What is Dennis v. United States?

Dennis v. United States is another iteration of the “clear and present danger” test. While that test is largely out of use by the modern Court, it provides perspective on the evolution of the Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence.

When can a conviction be sustained based on speech as evidence?

Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied: Where a statute speaks in non-speech terms, a conviction relying upon speech as evidence can be sustained only when the speech created a “clear and present” danger of attempting or accomplishing the prohibited crime.

Why was Eugene Dennis convicted?

Supreme Court upheld the convictions of a group of Communist Party organizers who were tried and convicted under the Smith Act for advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. Eugene Dennis and his collaborators had actively worked to recruit, educate, and teach new members and to prepare for revolution, ...

Why is the decision contracting expression albeit in the government’s “substantial interest” in protecting itself from?

The decision contracts expression albeit in the government’s “substantial interest” in protecting itself from violent overthrow. While outright advocacy for violent overthrow poses the possibility of a “substantial public evil,” the democratic notion of free speech is based on the idea that vibrant democracies can tolerate such discussion and facilitate peaceful transitions of power.

What is case significance?

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

What was the first major issue in the Smith Act?

The first major issue was whether the Smith Act itself violated the First Amendment as an unlawful abridgement of free speech. The Court dispensed with a facial challenge that the statute prohibited academic discussion and thus intuitively offended the concepts of a free speech and free press as guaranteed by the First Amendment. However the Court distinguished advocacy from mere discussion, on the basis that debate and discussion do not share the specific intent that advocacy and the Smith Act required.

Where is Columbia University?

Columbia University in the City of New York

Is a government overthrow a public evil?

The Court found that governmental overthrow was a substantial public evil and preventing overthrow was a substantial interest. Preventing overthrow of the government by force and violence “is the ultimate value of any society, for if a society cannot protect its very structure from armed internal attack, it must follow that no subordinate value can be protected.” (at 509.)

Did the defendants overthrow the government?

Despite ongoing efforts to form and run the Communist Party, the defendants’ activities did not result overthrowing the U.S. government.

What was Dennis convicted of?

Dennis was convicted of conspiring with other Communist Party leaders to overthrow the government by force or violence under the Smith Act. This law generally prohibited any conspiracy to advocate or teach the overthrow of the government by force or violence or to organize people to perform such advocacy or teaching.

What was the purpose of Schaefer v. United States?

S. 466, the editors of a German language newspaper in Philadelphia were charged with obstructing the recruiting service and with willfully publishing false reports with the intent to promote the success of the enemies of the United States.

Why are petitioners outlawed?

petitioners is outlawed because Soviet Russia and her Red Army are a threat to world peace. The nature of Communism as a force on the world scene would, of course, be relevant to the issue of clear and present danger of petitioners' advocacy within the United States.

What doctrine did the Communists use to achieve a communist government?

doctrine they advocated taught that force and violence to achieve a Communist form of government in an existing democratic state would be necessary only because the ruling classes of that state would never permit the transformation to be accomplished peacefully, but would use force and violence to defeat any peaceful political and economic gain the Communists could achieve. But the Court of Appeals held that the record supports the following broad conclusions: by virtue of their control over the political apparatus of the Communist Political Association, [ Footnote 1] petitioners were able to transform that organization into the Communist Party; that the policies of the Association were changed from peaceful cooperation with the United States and its economic and political structure to a policy which had existed before the United States and the Soviet Union were fighting a common enemy, namely, a policy which worked for the overthrow of the Government by force and violence; that the Communist Party is a highly disciplined organization, adept at infiltration into strategic positions, use of aliases, and double meaning language; that the Party is rigidly controlled; that Communists, unlike other political parties, tolerate no dissension from the policy laid down by the guiding forces, but that the approved program is slavishly followed by the members of the Party; that the literature of the Party and the statements and activities of its leaders, petitioners here, advocate, and the general goal of the Party was, during the period in question, to achieve a successful overthrow of the existing order by force and violence.

What was the purpose of the petitioners in the Smith Act?

Petitioners, leaders of the Communist Party in this country, were indicted in a federal district court under § 3 of the Smith Act for willfully and knowingly conspiring (1) to organize as the Communist Party a group of persons to teach and advocate the overthrow and destruction of the Government of the United States by force and violence, ...

How did the trial judge improperly interpret the statute?

It will be helpful in clarifying the issues to treat next the contention that the trial judge improperly interpreted the statute by charging that the statute required an unlawful intent before the jury could convict. More specifically, he charged that the jury could not find the petitioners guilty under the indictment unless they found that petitioners had the intent to "overthrow . . . the Government of the United States by force and violence as speedily as circumstances would permit."

What is the purpose of Section 2(a)(3)?

Section 2 (a) (3), "to organize or help to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow. . . ." Because of the fact that § 2 (a) (2) expressly requires a specific intent to overthrow the Government, and because of the absence of precise language in the foregoing subsections, it is claimed that Congress deliberately omitted any such requirement. We do not agree. It would require a far greater indication of congressional desire that intent not be made an element of the crime than the use of the disjunctive "knowingly or willfully" in § 2 (a) (1), or the omission of exact language in § 2 (a) (3). The structure and purpose of the statute demand the inclusion of intent as an element of the crime. Congress was concerned with those who advocate and organize for the overthrow of the Government. Certainly those who recruit and combine for the purpose of advocating overthrow intend to bring about that overthrow. We hold that the statute requires as an essential element of the crime proof of the intent of those who are charged with its violation to overthrow the Government by force and violence. See

Is That Illegal?

Anne Arcist hates everything and everyone. She started a group whose stated purpose is to get every child in the country hooked on methamphetamine. She posted her mission along with instructions to make crystal meth, ecstasy, and mollies. Once her blog gained notoriety, the police arrested her even though she had not manufactured, distributed, or even used the drugs. Is this right? Can you be charged for promoting criminal activity even though you committed no criminal act? This is the question at the center of Dennis v. United States (1951).

What did Justice Vinson say about the Smith Act?

Chief Justice Vinson said ''We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy.'' However, the right to speech regarding the overthrow of the government is more delicate, he admitted. The right to freely discuss political and social ideas, even those that suggest the need to overthrow the government, is sacrosanct and part of a healthy exchange of thoughts and ideas. But the prohibited conduct in the Smith Act was not one of teaching and discussing, but one of advocating.

Why was the due process not violated in Yates v. United States?

Furthermore, by enforcing the provision of the act, the defendants' due process rights were not violated because the government has the right to protect the public from the overthrow of their government. The decision was partially overruled by the outcomes of later cases Yates v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio.

What was the question in Schenck?

In Schenck, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that the ''question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.'' Justice Vinson reasoned that the defendants' clear advocacy for action on the overthrow of the government amounted to a clear and present danger.

Why did Anne Arcist go to prison?

So, under the rule in the Dennis decision, it looks like she and her group would go to prison because they clearly advocated action dangerous to the public. However, if she did so after the Brandenburg decision, she would be free because merely advocating a crime, no matter how repulsive, is not itself a crime.

What is the Schenck v. United States rule?

United States (1919), provides a standard in deciding cases where there is a need to protect Constitutional rights while considering the effect that exercising those rights have on the public safety.

Why is the freedom of speech not protected?

The Court reasoned that when thought and ideas become action or incitement to action , an individual's freedom of speech does not protect them. Furthermore, by enforcing the provision of the act, the defendants' due process rights were not violated because the government has the right to protect the public from the overthrow of their government.

What is the language of the Smith Act?

The very language of the Smith Act negates the interpretation which petitioners would have us impose on that Act. It is directed at advocacy, not discussion. Thus, the trial judge properly charged the jury that they could not convict if they found that petitioners did "no more than pursue peaceful studies and discussions or teaching and advocacy in the realm of ideas." He further charged that it was not unlawful "to conduct in an American college or university a course explaining the philosophical theories set forth in the books which have been placed in evidence." Such a charge is in strict accord with the statutory language, and illustrates the meaning to be placed on those words. Congress did not intend to eradicate the free discussion of political theories, to destroy the traditional rights of Americans to discuss and evaluate ideas without fear of governmental sanction. Rather Congress was concerned with the very kind of activity in which the evidence showed these petitioners engaged.

How did the trial judge improperly interpret the statute?

It will be helpful in clarifying the issues to treat next the contention that the trial judge improperly interpreted the statute by charging that the statute required an unlawful intent before the jury could convict. More specifically, he charged that the jury could not find the petitioners guilty under the indictment unless they found that petitioners had the intent to "overthrow . . . the Government of the United States by force and violence as speedily as circumstances would permit."

What is the clear and present danger test?

The "clear and present danger" test was an innovation by Mr. Justice Holmes in the Schenck case, 9 reiterated and refined by him and Mr. Justice Brandeis in later cases, 10 all arising before the era of World War II revealed the subtlety and efficacy of modernized revolutionary techniques used by totalitarian parties. In those cases, they were faced with convictions under so-called criminal syndicalism statutes aimed at anarchists but which, loosely construed, had been applied to punish socialism, pacifism, and left-wing ideologies, the charges often resting on farfetched [341 U.S. 494, 568] inferences which, if true, would establish only technical or trivial violations. They proposed "clear and present danger" as a test for the sufficiency of evidence in particular cases.

What was the Communist Party?

The program of this Association was one of cooperation between labor and management, and, in general, one designed to achieve national unity and peace and prosperity in the post-war period.

What was the philosophy of anarchism?

Anarchism taught a philosophy of extreme individualism and hostility to government and property. Its avowed aim was a more just order, to be achieved by violent destruction of all government. 3 Anarchism's sporadic and uncoordinated acts of terror were not integrated with an effective revolutionary machine, but the Chicago Haymarket riots of 1886, 4 attempted murder of the industrialist Frick, attacks on state officials, and [341 U.S. 494, 563] assassination of President McKinley in 1901, were fruits of its preaching.

What is wisdom of assumptions underlying legislation and prosecution?

The wisdom of the assumptions underlying the legislation and prosecution is another matter. In finding that Congress has acted within its power, a judge does not remotely imply that he favors the implications that lie beneath the legal issues. Considerations there enter which go beyond the criteria that are binding upon judges within the narrow confines of their legitimate authority. The legislation we are here considering is but a truncated aspect of a deeper issue. For me it has been most illuminatingly expressed by one in whom responsibility and experience have fructified native insight, the Director-General of the British Broadcasting Corporation:

What is the basis of the First Amendment?

We pointed out in Douds, supra, that the basis of the First Amendment is the hypothesis that speech can rebut speech, propaganda will answer propaganda, free debate of ideas will result in the wisest governmental policies. It is for this reason that this Court has recognized the inherent value of free discourse. An analysis of the leading cases in this Court which have involved direct limitations on speech, however, will demonstrate that both the majority of the Court and the dissenters in particular cases have recognized that this is not an unlimited, unqualified right, but that the societal value of speech must, on occasion, be subordinated to other values and considerations.

What is the language of the Smith Act?

The very language of the Smith Act negates the interpretation which petitioners would have us impose on that Act. It is directed at advocacy, not discussion. Thus, the trial judge properly charged the jury that they could not convict if they found that petitioners did 'no more than pursue peaceful studies and discussions or teaching and advocacy in the realm of ideas.' He further charged that it was not unlawful 'to conduct in an American college and university a course explaining the philosophical theories set forth in the books which have been placed in evidence.' Such a charge is in strict accord with the statutory language, and illustrates the meaning to be placed on those words. Congress did not intend to eradicate the free discussion of political theories, to destroy the traditional rights of Americans to discuss and evaluate ideas without fear of governmental sanction. Rather Congress was concerned with the very kind of activity in which the evidence showed these petitioners engaged.

How did the trial judge improperly interpret the statute?

It will be helpful in clarifying the issues to treat next the contention that the trial judge improperly interpreted the statute by charging that the statute required an unlawful intent before the jury could convict. More specifically, he charged that the jury could not find the petitioners guilty under the indictment unless they found that petitioners had the intent 'to overthrow * * * the Government of the United States by force and violence as speedily as circumstances would permit.'

What was the case in Foster v. United States?

(1946 ed.) § 11, during the period of April, 1945, to July, 1948. The pretrial motion to quash the indictment on the grounds, inter alia, that the statute was unconstitutional was denied , United States v. Foster, D.C., 80 F.Supp. 479, and the case was set for trial on January 17, 1949. A verdict of guilty as to all the petitioners was returned by the jury on October 14, 1949. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. 183 F.2d 201. We granted certiorari, 340 U.S. 863, 71 S.Ct. 91, limited to the following two questions: (1) Whether either § 2 or § 3 of the Smith Act, inherently or as construed and applied in the instant case, violates the First Amendment and other provisons of the Bill of Rights; (2) whether either § 2 or § 3 of the Act, inherently or as construed and applied in the instant case, violates the First and Fifth Amendment s because of indefiniteness.

Why did the majority refuse to apply the clear and present danger test to the specific utterance?

Its reasoning was as follows: The 'clear and present danger' test was applied to the utterance itself in Schenck because the question was merely one of sufficiency of evidence under an admittedly constitutional statute.

What is the basis of the First Amendment?

We pointed out in Douds, supra, that the basis of the First Amendment is the hypothesis that speech can rebut speech, propaganda will answer propaganda, free debate od ideas will result in the wisest governmental policies. It is for this reason that this Court has recognized the inherent value of free discourse. An analysis of the leading cases in this Court which have involved direct limitations on speech, however, will demonstrate that both the majority of the Court and the dissenters in particular cases have recognized that this is not an unlimited, unqualified right, but that the societal value of speech must, on occasion, be subordinated to other values and considerations.

What does "assassination" mean?

' (1) to knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; 6.

Why are great cases called great cases?

For great cases are called great, not by reason of their real importance in shaping the law of the future, but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment. These immediate interests exercise a kind of hydraulic pressure which makes what previously was clear seem doubtful, and before which even well settled principles of law will bend.' Mr. Justice Holmes, dissenting in Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197, 400 —401, 24 S.Ct. 436, 468, 48 L.Ed. 679.

Overview

Aftermath

In 1957, the Court in Yates v. United States restricted the holding in Dennis, ruling that the Smith Act did not prohibit advocacy of forcible overthrow of the government as an abstract doctrine. While Yates did not overrule Dennis, it rendered the broad conspiracy provisions of the Smith Act unenforceable. Finally, in 1969, Brandenburg v. Ohio held that "mere advocacy" of violence was per se protected speech. Brandenburg was a de facto overruling of Dennis, defining the bar for c…

Background of the case

The court's decision

See also

Bibliography

External links