Of course, the first question is regarding the definition. Criminal Syndicalism in and of itself is defined as a doctrine that advocates crime, sabotage, violence or other unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reforms and is typically advocated by those who believe unions should run the nation's economy. Criminal Syndicalism Laws are what incriminate the individuals who engage in this act.
Many states initially had some form of this law established around the time of the First World War, but the landscape looks a bit different today regarding this law. The states, as of 2013, that still uphold some form of this law include: Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Utah, California, Kansas, and Minnesota. One state no longer listed is Ohio, where the case involving Clarence Brandenburg was based. Brandenburg was initially arrested because of his connection with a KKK
meeting in which he made anti-Semitic and anti-black statements and advocated for the possibility of "revengeance". He also announced that KKK members were planning to march on D.C. on Independence Day. The conviction was a violation of Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism Law, which made it a crime to, "advocate the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform." When the case went to the Supreme Court, this law in Ohio was completely overturned. The courts ruled, unanimously, that advocacy could be punished only "where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". This also overruled the case I mentioned above involving Whitney v. California.
Now, this case took place in 1969 - a time in the United States when the race riots were going on and desegregation was still taking place. What would have been the result had this case taken place today? Well, we have an example in a seated President inspiring acts of violence on the capital. Apparently, we still believe there is a fuzzy line between what is simply "inspiration" and what is a blatant act of "inciting" violent acts. What is this fuzzy line? Should the fuzzy line exist? Are certain individuals exempt? Is there a racist undertone to the law as it exists today? Is there a gendered undertone to the law as it exists today? Is the current KKK getting away with this still today?
What a relevent topic to cover in therms of this class - especially given the more recent reading of Brandenberg v. Ohio. I am astounded that the hatred of the KKK is somehow deemed more acceptable in America than a communist labor party, especially in the context of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It would appear that this chapter of the Klan was being reactionary to the Civil Rights Act, fearing for 'caucasian rights' (and let's be very clear: there hasn't been a real and present danger to the rights or livelihood of white people in this country) and even going so far as to threaten 'revengenance'; but this is deemd more acceptable within the warped lens of criminal syndicalism. It is baffling to think that the KKK is less likely to take drastic action compared to a communist labor union, but that is how the supreme court saw it. It feels necessary to consider the response of our government towards crime from 'foreign' versus domenstic entities, especially in light of the attack on the Capital earlier this yer. If there are some states maintaining criminal syndicalism laws, perhaps those should be reexamined within the context of a threat that blossomed on our soil versus one that is perceived from the outside. Context is vital when it comes to free speech, and it's upsetting and disturbing that we have seen so much bias towards nationalism in America within our court's decision making process. I would say the KKK feels protected because it's a purely american institution...despite how sick that makes me feel.
ReplyDeleteIt is not unintentional that Dr. Mike made note of Trump's most recent call to storm the capitol in class the other day. As a college student, this term is something that we can look at indepth and have a better understanding of. But I honestly think if i asked my parents about their knowledge over this topic it would either be none existent or very limited. Thus, when looking at how Trump has practically gotten away with many many infractions of the law, it's probably because the general mass information on this is limited. It's easy to get away with such infractions when not many are aware of them even happening.
ReplyDeleteIt's really interesting to point out the history of how, compared to the KKK/other white supremacist organizations, easily socialists/communists/other leftists are convicted based on "inciting crime" and "disturbing the peace". I think we notice something really similar when Trump supporters can break windows/furniture while storming the Capitol and not face police repercussion, meanwhile BLM protestors would be tear-gassed while unarmed and kneeling silently.
ReplyDeleteThe KKK is still around today surprisingly and while much change has occurred in our society there are still negatives to it. BLM protestors were mainly peaceful but on certain news outlets all you'd see were the groups acting out in violence. As for the storm on the capital not much was done to that incident. Negative social occurances continue to occur even though we have had some change since the early 1900s. I have always been against violence because I believe violence only adds to more division and hate crime over just about any topic in general. If people just talked out their thoughts in civil ways while settling disputes with loving open minded minds and hearts, then maybe we would have a happier earth all around. Of course the way I speak and think is probably the farthest from harsh reality, I still can't help but daydream!
ReplyDeleteThank you for this clarification of Criminal Syndicalism! The act of figuring out intention for legal issues is either incredibly difficult or incredibly obvious, but most of the time it leans on the difficult side. It seems like intentionality provides a loophole for issues surrounding freedom of speech; with hate speech, for example, it's protected as long as it doesn't "incite" violence, but I think just by spewing hate speech it's riling tensions and implicitly inciting violence.
ReplyDelete