Gitlow v. New York

Benjamin Gitlow was convicted for violating the 1902 New York Criminal Anarchy Act. The act defined criminal anarchy as "the doctrine that organized government should be overthrown by force or violence, or by assassination of the executive heard or any of the executive officials of government, or by any unlawful means." Gitlow had been charged with teaching the necessity and duty to overthrow the government in two publications based largely on Marx's and Engels' Communist Manifesto. In a seven to two vote, they upheld Gitlow's conviction.

I think it was a good decision because they need to maintain order as the government. Also what Gitlow was talking about may have ruined the government. I think if someone is trying to overthrow the government publicly, then it shouldn't be allowed. A lot of people will just go with the flow because they want something to follow. People are very impressionable so it isn't in the governments best interest to let people hear these types of things.

Gitlow's publication and circulation of sixteen thousand copies of the Left-Wing Manifesto violated this Criminal Anarchy Act. The pamphlet went on to advocate the creation of a socialist system through the use of massive strikes and "class action...in any form."

Criminal anarchy; "the doctrine that organized government should be overthrown by force or violence, or by assassination of the executive heard or any of the executive officials of government, or by any unlawful means." It is good that the government doesn't allow people to try and overthrow the government because without a government it wouldn't be as good as a society.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas

In 1954, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas is arguably the biggest court case. It overturned Plessy v. Ferguson which stated "separate but equal" was no longer true. Blacks were denied the right to go to white schools which were far superior than black schools. The courts decision was in favor of Brown that blacks could go to integrated white schools.

I agree with the decision full on that blacks should be allowed in white schools. It wasn't fair that Brown's daughter couldn't go to a school that was a couple of blocks away just because it was a white school. I think that it was good that Chief Justice Earl Warren passed this because in his previous years as governor of California, he had mandated the internment of the Japanese. It is kind of ironic that he was the one to approve this after such a harsh ruling earlier.



This court ruling helped the civil rights movement a great deal. If it were not for this case, who knows where we would be today. The difference between this case and Sweatt v. Painter was that Sweatt dealt with universities, and the University of Texas Law School in particular, while Brown dealt with public education facilities for grades K-12.

Gideon v. Wainwright

Clarence Gideon was arrested for breaking into a Florida pool hall with intention to burglarize it. Gideon requested a court-appointed attorney and was denied because Florida only provided free counsel only in capital cases. At court, Gideon pleaded not guilty and conducted his own defense. He was found guilty and had to serve five years of imprisonment. When Gideon was in prison, he submitted a handwritten petition requesting the U.S. Supreme Court to accept his case on appeal.

I do think it was a good decision to approve Gideon's appeal because it made it so everyone could have a counsel if they couldn't afford one. If the person isn't appointed a lawyer, then they could have no idea what to say or what not to say. If both sides have a lawyer it is more fair to both sides because they know the law more than anyone.



When Gideon was in prison, he wrote a petition requesting an appeal on his case in the U.S. Supreme Court. I think this is very good because it is a person sticking up for themselves. If he had never done this, there wouldn't have been such a monumental case. This video shows parts of his case and how he clearly asked for a counsel and then the judge said he could only ask for one if it was dealing with the death penalty.

Miranda v. Arizona

In 1966, the Miranda decision actually dealt with four similar cases dealing with constitutional issues. The persons involved had been convicted on the basis of confessions made after very long and miserable interrogation. None of these people were informed of their right to counsel and to remain silent. In the title case, Ernesto Miranda, had been arrested by the police for questioning on charges of rape and kidnapping. Miranda wasn't advised of his right to an attorney nor his right to remain silent. After his interrogation, he signed a written confession. He was then found guilty later.

I agree with the decision because the Fifth Amendment clearly states that "no person. . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." I don't agree that he was let off the hook but it does allow people to be aware of their rights. If a criminal doesn't know his rights, then it's not really fair to him.



The Fifth Amendment guarantees that you don't have to tell on yourself. That is why when someone asks you a question and you don't want to answer, you can say I plead the fifth, which means you don't have to answer. It is better than having someone lie, rather then just keeping quiet. That way you can get no information rather than false information.

This whole decision means that when you are being arrested, you must be read your "Miranda" rights. It makes it so that when you are being arrested you are more aware of your rights. Your Miranda rights are; “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

In 1978, Allan Bakke was denied admittance into the Medical School of the University of California of Davis. At this time, the school used different admission processes for minority students. Allan Bakke, a white applicant has reasonably good grades and was denied admittance. When he was denied, he sued the Regents, the University's governing board, for a place at the medical school. California's Superior Court found that the special admissions program violated the federal and state constitutions and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Even after that, Bakke was still denied into the school. On appeal in the California Supreme Court, they supported Bakke, citing the Fourteenth Amendment, he was admitted into school. The Regents then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

I think it was a good decision because just because they are a minority doesn't mean they should have it any easier. If someone wants to make it into the medical school, then they should have to work as hard as the next person. This doesn't make it equal, this gives other people an easier opportunity. That is why I think when you apply to college you shouldn't have to put your ethnicity because it shouldn't matter. They should only look at your grades and what really matters. If they have your ethnicity, they might take you because they want diversity.



According to the decision, the Fourteenth Amendment isn't aimed at any particular minority or minorities. The Amendment was framed in universal terms, without reference to color, ethnic origin, or condition of prior servitude. I thought this video was pretty interesting because in the end, it says "search on" which is very broad yet powerful. If Allan Bakke didn't "search on" then this wouldn't have happened.

I think it was good than Bakke challenged the system because he fought for what he believed. If he didn't and just kept quiet, none of this would have happened. I think it was good because he was being treated unfair because he wasn't a minority.

Miller v. California

In 1973, Miller sent out advertisements of "adult" books and films that were unrequested. The brochures had sexually explicit photographs and drawings. Miller was found guilty under California's obscenity laws.
When I think of the First Amendment, I always wonder why we can't say things on live television or on the radio. I wish we were allowed to have an actual freedom of speech because they are just words. But in this case I do think that the decision was right. Those types of things shouldn't be allowed because they could get into the hands of impressionable kids that are to young to understand. I think that the state should have legitimate interest in prohibiting dissemination or exhibition of obscene material.

Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. 

The new guidelines that Chief Justice Warren Burger suggested  were; First was would the average person find that a work, when viewed as a whole, appealed to "prurient interest"? Second, does the work depict or describe certain specifically defend conduct in a patently offensive way? Third does the work lack "serious literacy, artistic, political, or scientific value"?

I think that the decision as a whole was good. Protecting innocence is good and little kids being exposed to that isn't fair to them. They may want to see that, but their parents don't. Little kids get persuaded very easily and this is good becuase it is one less influence out there.

Plessy v. Ferguson

Louisiana law in 1890, commanded railroads to "provide equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races". If this law was violated, there was a fine of twenty dollars of twenty five days in jail. Plessy, a man who was one-eighth black, sat in the white section of the train going from New Orleans to Covington, Louisiana. When ordered to move from his seat, he refused to move, then was arrested. Louisiana Supreme Court found that the statue under which Plessy had been arrested was valid.

I don't agree with the decision. When there is segregation it is implying inferiority of a race in my view. If you have segregation, then it implies that races cant intermingle. This case paved way for racial equality and made it so everyone was considered equal. I think it is good that we don't have laws about segregation because it is not fair to people who have no choice.



Seperate but equal isn't fair. Why can't two people of different races share the same water fountain. To me it is just two different people but back then it was considered much worse. I don't think seperate but equal is fair and I don't think people of the court were fair. People of the court need to people the type of people to promote change, not stay the same. Justice Brown labeled inferioty of other races because of segregation as fallacy. I disagree with this because I think segregation is makes people feel inferior.

This trial paved way for more change in later years. This paved way for Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. People needed change and this sparked the idea that everyone is created equal. It was unfair to Plessy that this had to happen to him but if it didn't, no one would have noticed the unfairness of the law at the time.