Law School Case Brief
Whitney v. Cal. - 274 U.S. 357, 47 S. Ct. 641 (1927)
That the freedom of speech which is secured by the United States Constitution does not confer an absolute right to speak, or an unrestricted and unbridled license giving immunity for every possible use of language. A state in the exercise of its police power may punish those who abuse this freedom by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to incite to crime, disturb the public peace, or endanger the foundations of organized government and threaten its overthrow by unlawful means. This is not open to question.
Petitioner sought review of a judgment affirming her conviction under the state Criminal Syndicalism Act (Act). The conviction was based on her involvement with the Communist Labor Party of California, including membership in and organization of the party. On appeal, petitioner claimed that the Act and its application to her violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
Was the Act violative of either the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding the conviction. The Act did not violate either the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, the court also held that the essence of the offense was the combining with others in an association for the accomplishment of desired ends through the advocacy and use of criminal and unlawful methods and that the Act was not an unreasonable or arbitrary exercise of the police power of the state that unwarrantably infringed any right of free speech, assembly, or association.
Access the full text case
Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class