Fiske v. Kansas
Fiske v. Kansas was a United States Supreme Court Case that was first argued May 3, 1926 and finally decided May 16, 1927.[1][2][3]
Background
The case began when Fiske, a Kansas resident proclaimed:
- Indented line
"That the working class and the employing class have nothing in common, and that there can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of working people and the few who make up the employing class have all the good things of life. Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the earth and the machinery of production and abolish the wage system. Instead of the conservative motto, 'A fair day's wages for a fair day's work,' we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, 'Abolition of the wage system.' By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old."[1][2][3]
A Kansas statute defining "criminal syndicalism" as "the doctrine which advocates crime, physical violence, arson, destruction of property, sabotage, or other unlawful acts or methods, as a means of accomplishing or effecting industrial or political ends, or as a means of effecting industrial or political revolution, or for profit . . ." The law was applied by a state court and was charged if the accused in some fashion held these views and formed a group of followers with a similar intent. Fiske was tried and convicted of violating this act, and the judgement was upheld in the Supreme Court of Kansas. He then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court where his case was heard.[1][2][3]
Trial
The federal question was whether the Syndicalism Act as applied in this case was repugnant to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The State offered no evidence as to the true beliefs and practices of Fiske and his organization. Fiske in turn reported that his organization in no way sought to bring about industrial change by illegal or criminal means.[1][2][3]
The state of Kansas could not prove that Fiske had any actual or imminent intent to illegally change the economic structure of the United States, nor could they prove his intent to overthrow the US government. Fiske's words were thus protected by the first amendment and could not be barred.[1][2][3]
Decision
The Syndicalism Act was called "an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of the police power of the State". The law applied as it had was found to be a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The judgement of the State court was reversed and Fiske was found to be not in violation of any law.[1][2][3]
Importance
This court decision further solidified the importance of the Due Process clause, ensuring that the state recognize all the legal rights of a person and prevents the government from violating these rights without a justifiable and pressing reason to do so. This case would also reinforce the Imminent lawless action clause of Brandenburg v. Ohio in the future, as well as other court cases that ruled that commitment and imminent intent to act upon those plans was needed to convict someone of a similar criminal violation such as in this case. This case was seen as a victory for proponents of a less strict definition of the first amendment and protected speech.[1][2][3]
References
- ^ a b c d e f g Tedford, Thomas (2009). "Fiske v. Kansas". Freedom of Speech in the United States.
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help) - ^ a b c d e f g "Fiske v. Kansas - 274 U.S. 380 (1927)". Justia: US Supreme Court Center.
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help) - ^ a b c d e f g "Fiske v. Kansas (docket #: 48) (1927)". First Amendment Center.
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help)