Frohwerk v. United States
Citations
- 249 U.S. 204
- 39 S. Ct. 249
- 63 L. Ed. 561
- 1919 U.S. LEXIS 2193
Syllabus
<p>The First Amendment, while prohibiting legislation against free speech as such, was not intended to give immunity to every possible use of language. P. 206.</p> <p>A conspiracy to obstruct recruiting by words of persuasion merely, viz, by circulating newspaper publications — with overt acts, is within the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917, and within the power of Congress to punish. Pp. 206,208. Schenck v. United States, ante, 47.</p> <p>After conviction under an indictment charging such a conspiracy and, as overt acts, the circulation of newspapers containing articles which might welí tend to effect its object if circulated in certain places, the court must assume, in the absence of a bill of exceptions, that the evidence as to the quarters reached by the newspapers and the scienter and expectation of the defendant, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. P. 208.</p> <p>A conspiracy to obstruct recruiting in violation of the Espionage Act is criminal even when no means have been specifically agreed on to carry out the intent; and hence it is not an objection to an indictment that means are not alleged. P. 209.</p> <p>Neither, iií’étrch an indictment, is it necessary to allege that false reports were made or intended to be made. Id.</p> <p>An allegation' that defendants conspired to accomplish an object necessarily alleges their intent to do so. Id.</p> <p>Under § 4 of the Espionage Act of 1917, the overt acts are sufficiently alleged as done to effect the object of the conspiracy. Id.</p> <p>An indictment is not bad for duplicity in setting up'in a single count a conspiracy to commit two offenses; the conspiracy is a unit, however diverse its objects. Id.</p> <p>There is no merit in the suggestion that acts which are not treasonable cannot be punished under the Espionage Act of 1917, upon the theory that other acts, included in the statute amount to treason and can only be punished as such. P. 210.</p> <p>The amendment of 1918, did not affect indictments found un
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- rejecting argument that conspiracy count was defective for failing to include allegation of intent and reasoning that “intent to accomplish an object cannot be alleged more clearly than by stating that parties conspired to accomplish it”
- freedom of expression “was never meant ‘to give immunity for every possible use of language’ ”
- “[N]either Hamilton nor Madison, nor any other competent person then or later, ever supposed that to make criminal the counselling of a murder . . . would be an unconstitutional interference with free speech.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Holmes
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.