No. The post office cannot block the magazine just for being critical of the war. The judge explained that there is a huge difference between criticizing the government and directly telling people to commit a crime. Just because the magazine's articles might make people angry or less supportive of the war isn't enough to make them illegal. For the government to censor something, the words have to be like a 'trigger for action,' not just an attempt to persuade. Since the magazine only praised protesters but didn't tell others to become protesters, it was protected speech.

No, what The Masses said does not break the Espionage Act law because even though it says a lot of negative things about the war and draft that might make people not support the war, it doesn't actually tell people to do illegal things like refuse to sign up for the draft. The law doesn't stop people from just criticizing the war, even if they use strong language and it has a bad effect, as long as they don't encourage others to break the law. If the law stopped all criticism, it would be unfair and go against free speech. The cartoons and writing, while they might make people angry, do not clearly tell people to break the law. So the postmaster was wrong to not let The Masses be mailed and the court will order him to mail it.

No. The Espionage Act does not authorize a postmaster to exclude a publication from the mail unless it contains language that directly advocates for the violation of law. The court established a crucial distinction between political agitation, which is protected, and direct incitement to illegal acts, which is not. Judge Hand reasoned that punishing speech for its mere 'tendency' to cause insubordination or obstruction would suppress all hostile criticism, a practice contrary to democratic principles. The statute requires more than creating a 'seditious temper'; it requires words that are 'triggers of action.' Analyzing the magazine's content, the court found that while it expressed sympathy and admiration for those resisting the draft, it did not explicitly or implicitly urge others to emulate that behavior. Therefore, it did not meet the standard of direct incitement necessary for it to be deemed illegal under the Espionage Act.

No, the content of The Masses does not violate the Espionage Act because while it contains strong criticism of the war and draft that may undermine support for the war effort, it does not go so far as to directly advocate for unlawful actions like resistance to the draft. The Act does not prohibit mere criticism of the war, even if that criticism is strongly worded and may have negative effects, so long as it stops short of counseling unlawful conduct. To interpret the Act otherwise would suppress legitimate political speech and exceed the scope of what Congress intended. The cartoons and text at issue, while politically inflammatory, do not cross the line into direct advocacy of unlawful action. Therefore, the postmaster was not justified in declaring The Masses nonmailable and the publisher is entitled to an injunction.

Masses Pub. Co. v. Patten

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot