Law Commons^™

Radically Subversive Speech And The Authority Of Law, Steven D. Smith

Michigan Law Review

This essay attempts to use a familiar, relatively concrete constitutional question to think about a familiar, relatively abstract jurisprudential question - and vice versa. The constitutional question asks why we should give legal protection to what I will call "radically subversive speech." The jurisprudential question concerns the ancient problem of the legitimacy or authority of law in general. "What is law," as Philip Soper puts the question, "that I should obey it?" I will try in this essay to show that the abstract question sheds light on the more concrete one - and vice versa.

Free Speech For Me—But Not For Thee: How The American Left And Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other, Bradley L. Smith

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Free Speech for Me—But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other by Nat Hentoff

The Nonpartisan Freedom Of Expression Of Public Employees, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Governmental activities affect each of us in a myriad of ways. The government's role as employer may pale in comparison with the more glamorous activities of the government as national defender, law enforcer, and allocator of scarce resources. Yet the legal ramifications of public employment-where the public interest in efficient governmental operation often conflicts with the public employee's freedom-have a profound influence upon American society.

In 1968, the Supreme Court in Pickering v. Board of Education formulated a test designed to balance these interests in defining the scope of a public employee's freedom of expression. In examining the nonpartisan free …

Clandestine Speech And The First Amendment, Wallace Mendelson

Michigan Law Review

In a comment" written at the conclusion of the Communist leaders' trial Professor Nathanson noted that Judge Medina's instructions required for a verdict of guilty that the jury "find only that the defendants intended to accomplish the overthrow of government 'as speedily as circumstances would permit it to be achieved.' " This, wrote Professor Nathanson, was "inconsistent with the clear-and-present-danger test as formulated by Holmes and Brandeis, unless there were other circumstances in the facts actually presented which made that test inapplicable." A major part of the balance of the comment is an attempt to refute a suggestion that clandestine, …

Constitutional Law - Civil Rights - First Amendment Freedoms-Reformulation Of The Clear And Present Danger Doctrine, Bernard A. Petrie

Michigan Law Review

In July 1948 the apostles of Communism in America were indicted under the conspiracy provisions of the Smith Act of 1940. The tension marking both the trial and the present era has obscured the constitutional problems and policy considerations involved. It is the purpose of this comment to trace the history of this cause celebre, Dennis et al. v. United States, and to examine its effect upon our constitutional notions of the permissible bounds of utterance, primarily by an analysis of the appellate opinions.

Constitutional Law - Validity Of Criminal Syndicalism Statute, Herman Jerome Bloom

Michigan Law Review

The defendant was indicted for assisting in the conduct of a meeting which was called under the auspices of the Community Party, an organization advocating criminal syndicalism. The statute defined criminal syndicalism as "the doctrine which advocates crime, physical violence, sabotage, or any unlawful acts or methods as a means of accomplishing or effecting industrial or political change or revolution," and described a number of offenses, including the presiding at, or the assisting in, the conduct of a meeting of an organization advocating criminal syndicalism as defined in the act. The state court upheld the indictment under a construction of …

Constitutional Law-Municipal Corporations-Police Power

Michigan Law Review

The defendants circulated, on the streets of Milwaukee, hand bills which set forth the political and economic views of their group. An ordinance made it unlawful for any person "to circulate or distribute any circular, hand bills, cards, posters, dodgers, or other printed or advertising matter, * * * in or upon any sidewalk, street, * * * or other public place, park or ground within the City of Milwaukee." The defendants were arrested and convicted of violating this ordinance. There was no charge that the ordinance was enforced in any unreasonable or discriminatory manner, or that its purpose was …