Talk:Yates v. United States

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Supreme Court infobox is now in, has been for some time apparently. This case needs more work, but is more usable now than it was before. Not sure where someone got the idea that the convictions were upheld at the Supreme Court... they may have been (I honestly don't know) on retrial at the district court, but the Supreme Court definitely struck the convictions and sent back for new trials. As far as sources for that, look at the majority opinion text... not sure what better reference one wants :) The Oyez Project's page is also useful; I've added it as a reference.76.190.208.143 (talk) 06:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black quote[edit]

The Black quote is a little strange, coming as it does after a discussion of what the Court held, since Black's opinion was not the opinion of the court, but rather a minority opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, to which only he and Douglas subscribed. It's certainly worth mentioning, but it should be mentioned in a way that doesn't erroneously imply that it is what the Court held. --Delirium 00:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the Black quote is strange - I left it in merely because it is kind of interesting, and I didn't have time to dig out a similarly salacious quote from any other opinion. The real money in Yates v. US is in the narrowing of the Smith Act and the distinction between advocacy to action and mere belief.76.190.208.143 (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved page to note year of decision[edit]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Supreme_Court_cases#Yates_v._United_States.

Anyone else, please feel free to change my move.

But you can discuss at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Supreme_Court_cases#Yates_v._United_States.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back by Postdlf, per above discussion, and I agree with this, thank you! :) — Cirt (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is yet another Yates v US case in 1957 before the US Supreme Ct, although in the next term. The most famous case, covered in this article, concerns the initial conviction of the charge for which defendants were indicted. The other case (355 U.S. 66, 2 L.Ed.2d 95, 78 S.Ct. 128, concerns appropriate sentencing for contempt(s) committed by defendants in this case. The Supreme Court ruled that there was but a single contempt (1 year sentence) rather than 11 contempts (consecutive sentences amounting to cumulative 11-year sentence). A separate article should be written about it with appropriate cross-reference in this article. Unfortunately, I am too busy at present to write that article.Ray Glock-Grueneich (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of lead ("clear and present danger")[edit]

I believe the lead summarizes the case in an inaccurate way. It currently reads:

Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the First Amendment protected radical and reactionary speech, unless it posed a "clear and present danger."

However, look at the opinion and do a CTRL+F search for "clear and present danger" - the phrase only appears once, in a footnote that states, "We find it unnecessary to consider the petitioners' contention with respect to the District Court's alleged failure to apply the "clear and present danger" rule..." 354 U.S. at 303 n.2.

It seems like the court's holding is narrower and has more to do with the jury instructions that were given in this particular case. LegalSkeptic (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]