Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 1917 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFreedom of the pressAdministrative reviewWartime speechEspionage Actnonmailabilitypostmasterjudicial review

Facts

The postmaster excluded the plaintiff's magazine from the mails on the ground that its cartoons and several passages violated the Act of June 15, 1917. The challenged material harshly attacked the war and the draft, praised Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, and conscientious objectors, and expressed admiration for those who resisted conscription on grounds of conscience. The postmaster argued that the issue contained false statements, caused insubordination or mutiny, and obstructed recruiting or enlistment service. The court treated the dispute as turning on the meaning of the words and pictures in the magazine under the statute.

Issue

Whether the postmaster had authority under the Act of June 15, 1917 to deny mailing privileges to this magazine because its anti-war cartoons and text allegedly made willfully false statements, caused insubordination or mutiny, or obstructed recruiting or enlistment service. More specifically, the question was whether the publication did more than criticize government policy and instead directly counseled or advocated violation of the draft law.

Rule

Courts may review a postmaster's action to determine whether it exceeds statutory authority, though the officer's decision carries a strong presumption of validity and is final on disputed facts. Under the Espionage Act provisions discussed, a "willfully false statement" means a factual statement known by the speaker to be false, not opinion or criticism. As to speech, the prohibitions on causing insubordination and obstructing recruiting or enlistment are limited to direct counseling, advising, or advocacy of resistance or law violation; indirect tendency to produce disaffection or a seditious temper is not enough.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, a monthly magazine published by Lakefront Review prints an editorial calling the draft "a machine for sacrificing workers to bankers." The piece urges readers to "condemn this law in every public hall and at every ballot box," but it never tells anyone to refuse induction or disobey any legal duty.

If the postal director excludes the issue from the mails on the ground that it obstructs recruiting and causes insubordination, which is the best answer under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority drew a sharp line between hostile criticism and direct advocacy of unlawful resistance. Speech may be intemperate, abusive, and apt to arouse disaffection, yet still fall outside the statute unless it directly counsels, advises, or urges others that it is their duty or interest to violate the law, resist the draft, or obstruct recruiting. Mere tendency is insufficient.