GITLOW VS NEW YORK (1952)

In this case is where the Supreme Court of the United States established the Dangerous Tendency Test. It was decided in 1925. So what happened
here?

Facts: Benjamin Gitlow sometime in November 1919 and an associate of him Landarken were arrested by the New York City Police Officers for
criminal anarchy which is an offense under New York State Law. So they have a law there which punishes criminal anarchy. What did they do? In
this case Gitlow and his associate were both communist party members and they published the article The Revolutionary Age this a newspaper
rather where they printed the net wing manifesto which is smuggled and the communits manifesto by Karl Marx and Engles which advocated the
violent revert law of the Government so they were the ones who published this newspaper and because of that they were charged with criminal
anarchy so while existing New York State Law. Why? Because they were advocates of socialist reform in the United States. They argued that while
their action was precipitated by that whatever they publish but they were convicted by the court. So the challenge here is on the law which
punishes their act this purported criminal anarchy for publishing this article-The Revolutionary Age.

ISSUE: Did this law which prohibited their activity, deprived these people, Gitlow and his friend with their constitutional right of freedom of
speech?

NO

RULING: And the court said tha NO, this law is valid. The law is not that unreasonable or arbitrary means of exercising the States police power. It
is within the State’s power to prevent in the observance of peace and regulate speech that may incite crime even if the threat of such action is
not immediate. So dire nigawas ang Dangerous Tendency, if the speech has a dangerous tendency of producing the danger that the state can
prevent then the state may regulate the same, impose restrictions on it without suffering from any constitutional defect. Freedom of speech
and press do not confer an absolute right to publish or speak without being held responsible for the result of said speech. The state may regulate
to protect its interests in the general welfare of its citizens.

However this test was overturned or abandoned by the Supreme Court sometime in the 1930’s, why?

Because this test is very, it’s quite easy to validate or make this restriction valid and defeat the right itself. As the jurisprudence of the Supreme
Court of the United States evolved they became stricter on the standards of validating these restrictions. Mas ginafavor na, based on the cases
assigned to us mas ginafavor na sa US ang enjoyment of freedom sa speech and the restrictions are strictly scrutinized.

Take note of this test- this Dangerous tendency Test, in your syllabus it provides that, when the legislative body has determined generally that
utterances of a certain kind involve such danger of substantive evil that they may be punished, the question whether any specific utterance
coming within the prohibited class is likely, in and itself, to bring about the substantive evil is not open to consideration. So it is generally under
this test allow these restrictions if it seeks to suppress a speech that has a tendency of danger then the state can properly suppress.