341 U.S.

494

Dennis v. United States

June 4, 1951

Vinson, C.J.
FACTS:
The Smith Act (the Act) made it a criminal offense for a person to knowingly or willfully advocate the
overthrowing of any government in the United States by force or to attempt to commit or conspire to
commit the crime the same. The Petitioners, Dennis and others were brought up on charges under the Act
for allegedly (1) willfully and knowingly conspiring to organize as the Communist Party of the United States,
a group whose members advocated the overthrow of the United States government by force and (2)
willfully and knowingly advocating and teaching the duty to do the same. It was clear from the record that
the leaders of the Communist Party intended to initiate a revolution when the opportunity came.
The Trial Court found the Petitioners guilty. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The constitutionality of the
statute under which the Petitioners were convicted was challenged.
ISSUE(s):
Whether or not the statute invalid by its own terms because it prohibited academic discussions on topics such
as that of the merits of Marxism-Leninism. NO
HELD:
In a 6-to-2 decision, the Court upheld the convictions of the Communist Party leaders and found that the
Smith Act did not "inherently" violate the First Amendment. In the plurality opinion, the Court held that
there was a distinction between the mere teaching of communist philosophies and active advocacy of those
ideas. Such advocacy created a "clear and present danger" that threatened the government. Given the
gravity of the consequences of an attempted putsch, the Court held that success or probability of success
was not necessary to justify restrictions on the freedom of speech.
Chief Justice Fred Vinson (J. Vinson): We must apply the clear and present danger test. Accordingly, we
note that the overthrow of the Government by force is certainly a substantial enough interest for the
Government to limit speech. Obviously, clear and present danger does not mean the government may
not act until the Putsch has been plotted and on is the verge of being executed.
On the facts, the court was convinced that the requisite danger to act existed here: (1) the formation by the
Petitioners of a highly organized conspiracy with rigidly disciplined members subject to call when the
leaders (the Petitioners) felt it was time for action; (2) the inflammable nature of world conditions; (3)
similar uprisings in other countries; and (4) the touch and go nature of our relations with other countries
with whom the Petitioners were ideologically aligned. Thus, the convictions of the Petitioners were
justified.
The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) is essentially allowing the prohibitions of
advocacy of a particular doctrine in this case the overthrow of the government by force. In later opinions
the Supreme Court will adopt a more rigid test that focuses on whether a speaker is advocating actions.
DOCTRINE(s)/KEY POINT(s):
- For an impediment on free expression to be permissible, the gravity of the evil, discounted by its
improbability of coming about, must sufficiently outweigh the invasion of free speech necessary to avoid
the danger.
- The clear and present danger test does not require that the government wait until overthrow is imminent.
It only need determine that there are persons advocating the overthrow of the government by force and

341 U.S. 494

Dennis v. United States

June 4, 1951

violence. It does not matter that the government not actually be in any danger of overthrow due to its size
and strength, the govt still has a substantial interest in putting down dangerous threats.