Coming to terms with diversity in the Midwest:
Key cases: Coming to terms with dissent State v Broms – Minnesota, 1918 (166 N.W. 771); State v Townley – Minnesota, 1918 (168 N.W. 591); State v Kassay – Ohio, 1932 (184 N.E. 521)
| Socialist Party election poster, 1912, featuring presidential candidate Eugene Debs (Indiana) and vice-presidential candidate Emil Seidel (Wisconsin) (courtesy Wikimedia Commons) Socialist leader Eugene Debs speaking in Canton, Ohio, 1918 (courtesy Wikimedia Commons) "[A speaker] has no constitutional right by means of the privilege of freedom of speech to force his thoughts upon the attention of the public in public places in such manner that riot and disorder will inevitably result.” - Justice Andrew Holt, in Broms “We have in this statute a direct attempt to deny the right to express opinion upon social and political questions … [The defendant] was indicted for justifying an act which evidently he never did … The Declaration of Independence was written as an incitement to deeds of violence in the furtherance of political reform.” -Justice Florence Allen (dissenting), in Kassay |
- OTHER ASPECTS OF MIDWEST LEGAL HISTORY DURING THIS PERIOD
- OTHER PERIODS OF MIDWEST LEGAL HISTORY
- THE LEGAL HISTORY OF OTHER REGIONS