Looks as though they simply declared it to be so.
"Their reference to the First Amendment protection is only relevant in light of the "privileges and immunities" which are extended to citizens of the United States."
Nowhere in the case is P&I mentioned. What's with you and P&I? Get off it -- it's irrelevant.
I said, read it again. The logic of the decision, apart from the lack of a specific reference to "P&I" seems pretty irrefutable to me.
The decision was that Gitlows "liberty" of free speech was not deprived without due process. This determination depends completely upon the determination that freedom of speech was among those liberties protected. Pray tell me how it came to be that freedom of speech became protected for Gitlow relative to a state law which was determined NOT to deny Gitlow due process? The "due process" issue was decided AGAINST Gitlow. It was in now way responsible for "incorporation".
I would welcome anyone else's comments, since this is the exact point at which previous threads have ended, with robertpaulsen insisting that "incorporation" is a "due process" issue. That is semantic nonsense.
The word "incorporate" comes from the latin "in" and "corpus". It means "to bring into the body". It refers to bringing into the body of privileges and immunites of citizens of the various states a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States.
If that is not what "incorporate" refers to in this case, then please tell us how you define it?
The first item in the syllabus of the Gitlow decision reads as follows:
1. Assumed, for the purposes of the case, that freedom of speech and of the press are among the personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States.
This is an essential part of the decision. The question is "is freedom of speech PROTECTED by the due process clause". The PROTECTION is by virtue of a prohibition against depriving of liberty without due process. The decision states that there was no deprivation of due process. The question is only relevant if there is a prohibition against deprivation of due process. This only exists because "freedom of speech" applies to the states.
The Supreme Court was probably reluctant to be more explicit because it would make it obvious that such things as the right to keep and bear arms would also be incorporated if they explained their "assumption".
Please explain how this very famous case, which was decided AGAINST the defendant, resulted in incorporation? It should be obvious to you that not everything went the way that Gitlow wanted. He was successful at having freedom of speech included in his liberties through "incorporation". He was unsuccessful at having the state law ruled unConstitutional by virtue of a deprivation of "due process".
If only the second item had been accomplished, we would not be talking about this case.