在着名的异议中，法官布兰迪斯和福尔摩斯支持吉托洛。他们没有发现“刑事无政府状态法”违宪，而是认为它被不正当地适用。法官们认为，法院应该支持申克诉美国的裁决，并且他们无法证明吉特洛的小册子造成了“明显而现实的危险”。事实上，大法官认为：“每个想法都是煽动[…] 。舆论的表达与狭义上的煽动之间的唯一区别在于说话者对结果的热情。“Gitlow的行为未达到申克所设的门槛，异议者认为，因此他的讲话不应该有被压制了。该判决具有开创性，原因有几个。通过发现人权法案适用于各州而不仅仅是联邦政府，它推翻了之前的案例，巴伦巴尔的摩。这一决定后来被称为“合并原则”或“合并原则”。它为将在未来几十年重塑美国文化的民权主张奠定了基础。关于言论自由，法院后来改变了其Gitlow的立场。在20世纪30年代，最高法院越来越难以压制言论。然而，像20世纪60年代末期一样，犯罪无政府状态法一直被用作抑制某些政治言论的方法。
澳大利亚新南威尔士大学Essay代写：合并原则
In the famous objection, Judge Brandeis and Holmes supported Gitolo. They did not find the “criminal anarchy law” unconstitutional, but thought it was improperly applied. The judges believe that the court should support Schenk v. the US ruling, and they cannot prove that Gitlow’s booklet created “obvious and realistic danger.” In fact, the Chancellor believes: “Every idea is instigating […]. The only difference between the expression of public opinion and the instinctive instigation is the speaker’s enthusiasm for the outcome. “Gitlow’s behavior did not reach Schenk’s The threshold set, the dissident believes, so his speech should not be suppressed. The decision is groundbreaking for several reasons. By discovering that the Bill of Rights applies to states rather than just the federal government, it overturns the previous case, Balen Baltimore. This decision was later called the “merger principle” or the “merger principle”. It lays the foundation for a civil rights claim that will reshape American culture in the coming decades. With regard to freedom of speech, the court later changed its position on Gitlow. In the 1930s, the Supreme Court became increasingly difficult to suppress speech. However, as in the late 1960s, criminal anarchy has been used as a way to suppress certain political statements.