吉特洛的律师认为，“刑事无政府主义法”违宪。他们断言，根据第十四修正案的正当程序条款，各州无法制定违反第一修正案保护的法律。根据Gitlow的律师的说法，“刑事无政府状态法”违宪地压制了Gitlow的言论自由权。此外，他们认为，根据申克诉美国案，该州需要证明这些小册子为美国政府制造了“明确而现实的危险”，以压制言论。吉特洛的小册子没有造成伤害，暴力或推翻政府。纽约州的律师辩称，国家有权禁止威胁言论。 Gitlow的小册子主张暴力，为了安全起见，国家可以在宪法上压制它们。纽约律师还辩称，最高法院不应干涉国家事务，声称美国宪法第一修正案应该只是联邦制的一部分，因为纽约州宪法充分保护了Gitlow的权利。法官爱德华桑福德于1925年发表了法院的意见。法院认定，刑事无政府状态法是宪法性的，因为国家有权保护其公民免受暴力侵害。在压制宣传暴力的言论之前，不能指望纽约等待暴力事件爆发。桑福德法官写道，“直接的危险就是现实和实质的，因为某一话语的效果无法准确预见。”因此，小册子没有发生实际暴力这一事实与大法官无关。 。法院利用以前的两个案例，Schenck诉美国案和艾布拉姆斯诉美国案，证明第一修正案并非绝对保护言论自由。如果政府能够证明这些词语产生了“明显且存在的危险”，那么在Schenck的言论可能是有限的。在Gitlow，法院部分推翻了申克，因为大法官没有遵守“明确和现在的危险”测试。相反，他们认为一个人只需要表现出抑制言语的“坏倾向”。法院还发现，“权利法案”第一修正案旨在适用于州法律和联邦法律。第十四修正案的正当程序条款规定，任何国家都不能通过剥夺任何人的生命，自由或财产的法律。法院将“自由”解释为“权利法案”（言论，宗教信仰等）中列出的自由。因此，通过第十四修正案，各州必须尊重第一修正案的言论自由权。桑福德大法官的意见解释说：“就目前而言，我们可以并且确实假设言论自由和新闻自由 – 受第一修正案保护免受国会罢免 – 属于正当程序保护的基本个人权利和”自由“。第十四修正案的条款，由各国减损。
英国华威大学论文代写：刑事无政府主义法
Gitlow’s lawyers believe that the “criminal anarchist law” is unconstitutional. They asserted that under the due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, states were unable to enact laws that violated the protection of the First Amendment. According to Gitlow’s lawyer, the Criminal Anarchy Act unconstitutionalally suppresses Gitlow’s right to freedom of expression. In addition, they believe that according to Schenck v. United States, the state needs to prove that these pamphlets have created “clear and realistic dangers” for the US government to suppress speech. Gitlow’s pamphlet did not cause harm, violence or overthrow the government. New York State lawyers argue that the state has the right to ban threatening speech. Gitlow’s booklet advocates violence, and for security reasons, the state can suppress them constitutionally. New York lawyers also argued that the Supreme Court should not interfere in state affairs, claiming that the First Amendment to the US Constitution should be only part of the federal system because the New York State Constitution fully protects Gitlow’s rights. Judge Edward Sanford published the court’s opinion in 1925. The court found that the criminal anarchy law is constitutional because the state has the right to protect its citizens from violence. Before suppressing the propaganda of violence, New York cannot be expected to wait for the violence to erupt. Judge Sanford wrote, “The immediate danger is reality and substance, because the effect of a discourse cannot be accurately foreseen.” Therefore, the fact that there is no actual violence in the booklet has nothing to do with the judge. . The court used the previous two cases, Schenck v. United States and Abrams v. United States, proving that the First Amendment did not absolutely protect freedom of speech. If the government can prove that these words create “obvious and dangerous”, then Schenck’s remarks may be limited. In Gitlow, the court partially overturned Schenk because the Justice did not follow the “clear and current danger” test. Instead, they believe that a person only needs to show a “bad tendency” to suppress speech. The court also found that the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights was intended to apply to state and federal law. The due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment stipulate that no country can pass laws that deprive anyone of their lives, liberties or property. The court interprets “freedom” as the freedom listed in the “Bill of Rights” (speech, religious beliefs, etc.). Therefore, through the Fourteenth Amendment, states must respect the freedom of expression of the First Amendment. Justice Sanford explained: “For the time being, we can and do assume freedom of speech and freedom of the press – protected by the First Amendment from parliamentary removal – basic individual rights and “freedom” that are protected by due process The provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment are derogated from States.”