The USSC ruled "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".
OK. That's established. Now, on to the case itself.
What speech is Gitlow attempting to use? Why, he's promoting the overthrow of the government! Can that speech be curtailed by the government? The answer was yes.
The bottom line? States must now protect your right to freedom of speech. States, however, "may forbid both speech and publication if they have a tendency to result in action dangerous to public security, even though such utterances create no clear and present danger."
And since there was no denial of "due process", what is the only mechanism by which the Supreme Court was able to determine that freedom of speech is protected? Remember, now, THERE WAS NO DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS. What is it that enabled the Supreme Court to require "due process" in this case. Remember, now, they referred to the First Amendment which reads "Congress shall make no law ...". What is it that makes the First Amendment relevant to this case? The First Amendment makes no mention of "due process". Remember, Gitlow LOST the case and yet the case is of great importance legally.
Try to explain how there was NO denial of due process and yet "incorporation" happened?
OK. That's established. Now, on to the case itself.
ALL of our personal rights & liberties are protected by due process, and always have been, regardless of USSC 'rulings'.
What speech is Gitlow attempting to use? Why, he's promoting the overthrow of the government! Can that speech be curtailed by the government? The answer was yes.
Bad 'ruling'. It could be claimed that YOU paulsen, -- are promoting the overthrow of our Constitutionally guaranteed "republican form of government" with your 'States rights' nonsense. Can your speech be curtailed?
The bottom line? States must now protect your right to freedom of speech. States, however, "may forbid both speech and publication if they have a tendency to result in action dangerous to public security, even though such utterances create no clear and present danger."
Are your utterances dangerous to public security paulsen? I think the case has merit, and maybe I can get our county prosecutor to agree..
Its well know that a ham sandwich can be indicted in some States.
Wanna argue that point too?