Judge Learned Hand was a judge at the US District Court level who decided on the two court cases Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten and Nearing v. United States, both involving the Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1918. The Espionage and Sedition Acts limited what papers and people could say, especially during war times. In these two cases, seemingly antiwar sentiments were allowed by Hand based on his own test for the act. While Judge Holmes was more focused on the effects of the words, Hand was more focused on the words, specifically the literal meaning. Hand’s literal meaning test used in the Masses case was revised in his next court case Nearing v. United States due to shortcomings in his first test.
In Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten, the magazine
…show more content…
was allowed since the images and text did not directly tell the readers to act against the war effort. Throughout his opinion, he uses the words “advise” and “counsel” as criteria for the test. Hand writes that expression of opinions that “…stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or interest to resist the law,” do not violate the law (4). He was looking for certain key aggressive words when determining the legality of the pieces in the magazine. In the magazine in question, the image was an exaggerated symbolic cartoon with no words calling for action while the text was a poem applauding those who fight against the draft and enlistment efforts. These pieces have the potential to cause uprising against the war efforts in the US since the antiwar message was implied. But since it was missing phrases that have a literal meaning of counseling or advising, Hand found everything in the Masses magazine to be legal. Hand was trying to give the people the most freedom he could give under the Espionage and Sedition Acts. In his opinion, “It cannot be that the law means to curtail such expressions merely, because the convictions of the class within the draft are stronger than their sense of obedience to the law,” (Hand 5). By looking at just the literal meaning, he made the range of criteria for illegal language as small as possible without actually breaking the law. This literal meaning test is ineffective because words can do significantly more harm than their literal meanings. For example in Julius Caesar by Shakespeare, Mark Antony kept on saying that Brutus and Cassius were “honourable men” and that he was only talking to the people about Caesar just so that they know what happened, not to cause a scene. In fact, at one point, Antony explicitly says, “Good friends, sweet friends, let me not stir you up…” (126). Though he never outright told the people to rebel, by the end, the people got angry and went to attack the “honourable” Brutus and Cassius. If Mark Antony’s speech were put through Hand’s literal meaning test, it would pass (there was a lack of key phrases). However, it ended up causing the kind of chaos amongst the people that the government wanted to avoid. Both literal and implied meaning of words can lead to the same effects; the only difference is that with implied meaning, the audience needs to come to the conclusion themselves. In some cases, this may actually be more detrimental. Having to logically go through information to reach the same conclusion solidifies the opinion more since it required more effort to get there. If Antony told the people to rebel against Brutus and Cassius, the people may not have felt the same amount of rage than they felt after Antony implied that rebelling was justified. After the Masses case, Hand sees the flaws in only considering the literal meaning of words and changes his test in Nearing v.
United States. In Nearing v. United States, Hand writes, “The statute, therefore, would in any event extend to advice or counsel which had not the excuse of interest or a recognized duty; but under the rule in Masses Pub. Co. v. Patten, supra, it must be held to go further, and to include also Page 4 252 F. 223, *229; 1918 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 931, **8 the utterance of words which do not advise or counsel, but which are apt to dissuade eligibles and are uttered with that [**13] specific intent” (4-5). He extended his test to not only include the literal meaning of the words, but also the intent. The author must know that his words will have the effect(s) he/she intended in order to be held liable. In the case, the party was punished for the counts involving the conspiracy of insubordination by publishing a pamphlet. However, the party was not punished for the counts involving the actual publication of the pamphlets. The specific intent of the idea of a pamphlet was to try to obstruct, not actually obstruct, the enlistment effort of the army. The pamphlet did not directly advise or counsel and its intent was to actually obstruct the efforts. Because the purpose of the idea and not the pamphlet was achieved, the party was guilty for the first and second
counts. Hand, while trying to give the people more freedom in their expressions, focused on only one aspect of speech: literal meaning. This does not encompass all situations and can lead to violent effects in the people and disturbances in the peace in a society. After seeing the flaws in his test, he modified his literal meaning test in order to ensure maximum freedom to the people and overall safety.
Although a portion of Leuchtenburg’s evidence supporting his opinion on which case constituted a constitutional revolution involved the shift in the Court’s decision-making, the question of the reason for the shift in the Court begs to be explained. At the time, during the case of West Coast v. Parrish, the court seemed to be in sorts fueled by politics. The Justices were concerned with the consequences that could very well up rise from their reluctance to approve the standard legislation. In other words, they may have shifted their votes in hopes of saving the traditional foundation. Justice Roberts’ voting decisions would then need to be closely examined seeing that he supported the liberal side in 1934 concerning the case of Nebbia v. New York, supported the conservative side in 1935-1936 concerning the Rail Pension and Tipaldo, and then returned to suppor...
...his seemingly routine case of fornication and premarital pregnancy proved to be significant for early American legal history. The unfolding of this story and the legal changes that it brought about makes evident that by the end of the seventeenth century, The Eastern Shore had shaped a distinct legal culture. The characters involved in each case also revealed the extent the powerful players were able to shape the law to their own self-interests. The goal of the powers to be was to protect property interests, protect personal reputation and liberty, and to maintain social order.
In Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. CO., the appellant, Joel Reyes, sought rehabilitation from the defendant, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, after being run over by one of the defendants trains while lying on the tracks. The appellant claims the defendant was negligent due to its inability to see the plaintiff in time to stop the train. The defendant refutes the plaintiffs claim by blaming the plaintiff for contributory negligence because the plaintiff was believed to be drunk on the night in question based off of pass arrest records . In a motion in limine Reyes ask for the exclusion of the evidence presented by the defense. The trial court, however denied the plaintiff’s request and ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, Reyes,
The litigation of R. v. Buhay is a case where the Charter of rights and freedoms was violated by the policing parties but maintained and performed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This litigation began after two individuals; of which one was Mervyn Buhay, rented a locker at the Winnipeg bus depot. Buhay began to distract the security guards while his friend placed a duffel bag in the locker they had rented. After they left, the security guards were so engrossed by the smell coming from the locker that they unlocked it to find a sleeping bag full of marijuana in the duffel bag. Buhay was arrested the day after the bag was taken into possession even though no warrant was received to search the locker in the first place. During the first trial, due to the violation of the Charter by the police officers, Buhay was acquitted. The Crown, however, appealed this ruling and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada where once again Buhay was acquitted in a 9-0 ruling. Although Buhay committed a crime by possessing marijuana, the police violated the Charter by searching Buhay`s locker without a warrant or his consent, making the Supreme court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay reasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay was reasonable due to the fact that the police violated the Charter of rights, no warrant was received to unlock the locker let alone seize the duffel bag, and lastly because the bus depots terms for the locker were not efficiently provided to the customers making them aware of any reasonable search conduct.
In Herbert’s and Seaver’s letters (1970), Herbert writes to Seaver discussing Seaver’s commercial use of the line “It’s the Real Thing” for Mr. Haskin’s book without “consent” from the Coca-Cola company: Seaver’s letter is a reply discussing the misunderstanding for the line. The speaker of both letters utilizes a different approach to explain to each other their justification of Coca-Cola’s ownership for the line and commercial use of it. Herbert’s letter contains a condescending and arrogant tone; because of this, Seaver replied back in a satirical, sarcastic, and an almost amused tone.
The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
For more than a dozen years, Clarence Earl Gideon lay buried in a nondescript, unmarked grave in Hannibal, Missouri. Most Americans outside of the legal community (and many within it) would neither recognize Gideon's name, nor understand the seismic impact he had on our legal system. Fortunately, Anthony Lewis, the renowned journalist now retired from The New York Times, chronicled Gideon's saga from the filing of his hand-written petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court to the momentous decision of March 18, 1963. Lewis brings to life the story of the man behind the case, the legal machinations of the court appointed lawyer (and others working with him) toiling on Gideon's behalf and the inner-workings of the Supreme Court. By telling the story, Lewis has preserved an important piece of legal and social history and we are all the richer for his doing so.
Do you know that notifying your fellow Americans of their constitutional rights was a Federal crime? Well it was during World War One (WWI). In the case Schenck v. the United States, schenck tried to remind his fellow Americans of their constitutional rights and also let them know that the draft was being used as a form of militarized slavery. This case contained men who his right was taken away after he tried to get the military draftees to fight against the draft. However Congress took his right of speech away when it was arrested and convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917.
Schenek v. United States was a trial in 1919 that reaffirmed the conviction of a man for circulating antidraft leaflets among members of the armed forces. This trial upheld the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which by many deemed unconstitutional. The Espionage Act of 1917 was a United States federal law, which made it a crime for a person to convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. The Sedition Act forbade Americans to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during war. The act also allowed the Postmaster General to deny mail delivery to dissenters of government policy during wartime. These two laws denied the freedom of speech that our sacred Bill of Rights was supposed to uphold. The antidraft flyers that Schenek passed out claimed to be freedom of speech so the government could not stop the circulation of Schenek’s pamphlets. However, by passing out antidraft laws, Schenek had “the intent to interfere with the operation of success of the armed forces of the United States.” By doing this, he broke the law. He was sentenced to six months in prison for breaking an unconstitutional law. The government was trying to reduce the freedom of speech during a time of war so that the nation would be united as one. The opposition of some feared Woodrow Wilson and his cabinet so they took action by reducing some freedoms and imprisoning many people unconstitutionally.
.guilty. . .guilty. . .guilty. . .” (211). By using only four guilty’s, Lee is able to demonstrate that the word of two white people has a greater effect than that of an African American even though the man who was put up for his life had not harmed, nor had he ever damaged anything he came into contact with.
Gitlow vs. New York is a case that influences the integrity of U.S legislative system importantly. In the 1925s, Benjamin Gitlow, a left wing socialist, published speeches of anti-government to advocate a new better communist government. His action caused the charge as unpopular and dangerous speech for the whole society from the New York state government, and his behavior became a court case. According to the website thefreedictionary.com, that “The opinions expressed in” “The Revolutionary Age” and “The Left Wing Manifesto” “formed the bases for the defendant's convictions under Sections 160 and 161 of the penal law of New York, which were the criminal anarchy statutes” (n.p). “The Revolutionary Age” and “The Left Wing Manifesto” ar...
Judicial Tyranny was a very thought-provoking read and even though the reader may agree with Mr. Sutherland’s view point, a rational thinker must admit that he and his colleagues do the very same thing they accuse the federal courts are doing - forcing their beliefs and opinions (court rulings) on the reader. It can be reasonably argued that some of the statements written were just as radical and antagonistic as it accused the judiciary of being. Even though I may agree with most of what was written, as an unbiased reader I have to admit that the work was presumptive and does not fully address other important issues concerning the federal court system.
Palmer, Elizabeth A. "The Court and Public Opinion." CQ Weekly 2 Dec. 2000. CQ Weekly. SAGE Publications. Web. 1 Mar. 2000. .
Challenging the normality, Margaret Fuller rips the chains of women arguing for equal status in marriage, education, and participation in society throughout her essay “The Great Lawsuit.” During the late 1800s to early 1900s, the daily lives of women and men were undoubtedly divided. Based on gender, people were expected to execute specific tasks to ensure that the home and community functioned as smoothly as possible. Men typically worked outside of the house and participated in many city functions. Women, however, were much more limited in their movements. The majority of their expected work were done within the home– cleaning, cooking, gardening, and sewing. Women were also expected to marry and conceive, and anyone who did not, were seen