Criminal syndicalism and the Supreme Court
Criminal syndicalism refers to the advocacy of violent action to achieve social change, often associated with labor movements and radical political groups. In the early 20th century, particularly between 1906 and 1916, the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) promoted syndicalism through campaigns aimed at fostering worker rebellion. In response, numerous states enacted laws criminalizing syndicalist associations and their advocacy between 1917 and 1920. The Supreme Court played a significant role in interpreting these laws, notably in cases like *Whitney v. California* (1927), where the court upheld the prosecution of activist Charlotte Anita Whitney for her affiliations. However, dissenting Justice Louis Brandeis argued for a more protective standard regarding free speech. Over time, the court's stance evolved, particularly in *Brandenburg v. Ohio* (1969), which established that advocacy could only be penalized if it incited imminent lawless action. By 2000, the number of states with criminal syndicalism laws had dwindled to six, reflecting a significant shift in the legal landscape regarding free speech and political association.
Subject Terms
Criminal syndicalism and the Supreme Court
Description: A philosophy calling for workers to organize and seize control of economic organizations and politics through illegal use of force.
Significance: The Supreme Court’s rulings on the constitutionality of laws against syndicalism affected the rights of freedom of speech and association.
Between 1906 and 1916 the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) embraced syndicalism and conducted a “free speech” campaign to propagate the idea of a worker’s rebellion. Although local officials suppressed IWW speakers, between 1917 and 1920, twenty-one state and two territorial legislatures passed laws that criminalized syndicalist associations and the advocacy of syndicalism and other ideologies promoting revolutionary change.
The Supreme Court’s opinions on the constitutionality of the state criminal syndicalism laws greatly affected the protection of speech and association. In Whitney v. California (1927), the justices sanctioned criminal prosecution of Socialist Party member and activist Charlotte Anita Whitney for association with a syndicalist organization with a program that potentially threatened public order. Dissenting, Justice Louis D. Brandeis argued that Whitney’s association with a syndicalist political party fell short of being a clear and present danger to the public because no “immediate serious violence was to be expected or was advocated.” In subsequent cases, including DeJonge v. Oregon (1937), the justices gradually adopted Brandeis’s standard and constricted the circumstances in which criminal syndicalism laws could be used to penalize speech and association. Finally, in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the justices overruled the Whitney decision to protect advocacy “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” By 2000, only six states retained laws against criminal syndicalism.