CLANDESTINE SPEECH AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Authors

Wallace Mendelson, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

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, underground utterance (unlike that which is openly directed to the public) is not entitled to the protection of the Holmesean clear and present danger test.

Recommended Citation

Wallace Mendelson, CLANDESTINE SPEECH AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT, 51 Mich. L. Rev. 553 (1953).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol51/iss4/4