World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten

Article Id: WHEBN0002483313
Reproduction Date:

Title: Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Learned Hand, Brandenburg v. Ohio, Clear and present danger, Segraves v. California, Censorship of student media
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten

Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten
Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Full case name Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten
Decided July 24, 1917
Citation(s) 244 F. 535 (S.D.N.Y. 1917)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Learned Hand

Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten, 244 F. 535 (S.D.N.Y. 1917), was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that addressed advocacy of illegal activity under the First Amendment.

Background

In cases such as Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919) and Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925) and others, the United States Supreme Court struggled to draw the line between politically unpopular speech and actual threats to national security. Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten greatly influenced the Supreme Court’s eventual adoption in Brandenburg v. Ohio of the "incitement test" for advocacy of illegal activity.

At issue in Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten was the federal Espionage Act of 1917, which prohibited citizens from counseling or advising violation of the law. The Court found that the New York postmaster's refusal to allow circulation of the antiwar journal The Masses under the statute violated the First Amendment.

Opinion

Learned Hand wrote the opinion:

“To assimilate agitation, legitimate as such, with direct incitement to violent resistance, is to disregard the tolerance of all methods of political agitation which in normal times is a safeguard of free government.”

Judge Hand affirmed that if a citizen “stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law,” then he or she is protected by the First Amendment. One may, for example, “admire” resistors of the draft, but may not, under the “incitement” test, “counsel or advise” someone to violate the law at a specific time and place.


This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.