September 11, 2011
Whitney v. California was decided on May 16, 1927.
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=274&invol=357)
1. Facts
Anita Whitney was charged in violation of the Criminal Syndicalism Act (CSA) of the state of California on five counts. The CSA states,” that any doctrine or precept advocating, teaching, or aiding and abetting the commission of crime sabotage or unlawful acts of force and violence or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing a change in industrial ownership or control, or effecting any political change is in direct violation.”
Whitney helped organize a California branch of the Communist Labor Party. This group came after her involvement with the Oakland branch of the Socialist Party. The Communist Labor Party was formed after a split difference toward a more radical thinking during the national convention of the Socialist Party. They stated their purpose was, “to create a unified revolutionary working class movement in America.” They stated that they wanted to organize the workers as a class in a revolutionary class struggle to conquer the capitalist state, for the overthrow of capitalist rule, the conquest of political power and establishment of a working class government. Whitney saw involvement in this movement by being a member of the Credentials Committee and a member of the Resolutions Committee of the Communist Labor Party.
The state of California therefore charged that the Communist Labor Party was focused on the violent overthrow of the government in their efforts. Whitney appealed the ruling of the Alameda County Court with her involvement in the movement. She tried to have the case appealed to the Supreme Court but her petition was denied. The case was brought to the Supreme Court finally after a writ of error (due to jurisdiction, the Judge asked to have them review the case).
2. Issues
Whitney argued the vague outline of the state law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment that covers her federal right established in the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment says that, “no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process” (idea that laws must be fair). She argued that she had no intentions of criminal acts with the organization.
The court was trying to determine whether a state law restricting free speech is valid to exercise for enforcement to their jurisdiction. The court also was determining where it fits in with legislation with the state as this law applies to everyone, and direct proof of violence must be sought. A major issue of the case was having evidence to link and determine any criminal intentions of actions by the group, rather than seeing them as a threat to take down by what their mission statement might have inferred.
3 Decisions
Whitney was tried and convicted on the first count to imprisonment. The Supreme Court decided that it cannot disturb the judgment of the state due to a testimony that intended to establish conspiracy on the part of the members of the International Workers of the World, to commit serious crimes that Whitney was a member of. The verdict stands from the previous court.
4. Analysis
I believe the court came to this verdict because they were unable to find hard evidence against what the local court decided on with violation of the extent of the organizations criminal intentions. It would be one thing if proper testimony was given that reflected a non-criminal view but, even regard to the freedom of speech, their statements to me seemed very aggressive as well as to the courts thoughts. Though her intentions may have been good, the organization’s overall direction seemed dictatorial. No real hard evidence was presented after the appeal to overturn the initial verdict. The only defense was the violation of states right to federal rights. The freedom of speech applies to all states and is restricted to what is really intended.
5. Questions
1. How do you feel about the state trying to take control over our federal rights?
2. Would you favor with the state or Whitney in saying measuring her intnetions?
3. Did you think Whitney’s rights were given?
4. Did yousee any intent in the case reading that Whitney confessed to her actions in admitting criminal intent?
4 thoughts on “Whitney v. California (1927)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 12th, 2011 at 12:01 am
I’m torn between whether or not I agree with the state and federal verdicts. This came at a time when the threat of dictatorship (communism especially) was a dark cloud looming over the American Dream and all of its white, picketed-fence glory.
I can understand why the courts reacted the way they did in this decision. There was a group that, from the outside looking in, seemed to want to get rid of the current form of Government in the U.S. and replace it with the Communist way of things. As far as I know, her intentions may have been to simply better the “working class” of Americans. Though, it was almost like the old “wrong place, wrong time” type of cliche. Personally, I cannot say I see the organization causing a danger to society. As a matter of fact, because the majority of America was a strict Democratic majority, this group would have most likely died off due to lack of steam.
It was just one group of people looking to spark some curiousity to promote change for the “working class” and they just so happened to drape themselves under the red cloak to do so. It was a scary time for Americans, but I don’t think the group was going to cause any real harm. They had a passion and they were willing to go to great lengths to demonstrate that passion. There was no direct crime and I do not think there would have been. But, I guess better safe than sorry.
September 12th, 2011 at 11:12 am
Solid job on your brief. You got the important point that the Court was ruling on the question of the 14th Amendment – do state laws have to adhere to the First Amendment freedom of speech? The court ruled the California law was constitutional. However, it’s important to note that Whitney was later pardoned. I’m sure this case would be ruled quite differently today.
September 15th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
It is always interesting to read about old hysteria from the government and/or media. Particularly during strife, these things always get amplified.
I believe that today this would have been handled quite differently. For some contrast check this out. http://bigjournalism.com/acary/2010/05/04/in-the-wake-of-the-times-square-bomber-the-hutaree-militia-case-starts-to-unravel-on-first-amendment-grounds/
I don’t know if you remember this but that talks about the Michigan right-wing militia group that had planned on killing law enforcement officers in hopes of sparking a larger war against the government. This happened in March of last year.
”any doctrine or precept advocating, teaching, or aiding and abetting the commission of crime sabotage or unlawful acts of force and violence or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing a change in industrial ownership or control, or effecting any political change is in direct violation.”
I don’t think Whitney was guilty. There was no evidence and she was convicted based on her affiliation with a larger group. Mountains from molehills. However, I am aware that it is easy for me to say this now, as opposed to 1920.
September 16th, 2011 at 11:25 am
I feel as if this court case if tried in present day would find a different verdict. During this time in the United States, the fear of governmental overthrow and of communism clearly was present within this case. It seems as if the conditions of the time played a role in the courts decision, but the court tried it’s best to give Whitney a fair trial for the time and circumstances.