State v. Fox

• Decision Date: 29 November 1912
• Citation: 71 Wash. 185,127 P. 1111
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. FOX.

127 P. 1111

71 Wash. 185

STATE v. FOX.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 29, 1912

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; W. O. Chapman Judge.

Jay Fox was convicted of editing printed matter tending to encourage disrespect for law, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Jas. J Anderson, of Tacoma, for appellant.

J. L McMurray, of Tacoma, for the State.

MOUNT C.J.

The appellant was convicted upon a charge of editing printed matter tending to encourage disrespect for law. He was sentenced to a term of two months in the county jail of Pierce county. He appeals from that judgment, and assigns several errors which we shall briefly notice.

This prosecution is based upon section 2564, Rem. & Bal. Code, which provides as follows: 'Every person who shall willfully print, publish, edit, issue, or knowingly circulate, sell, distribute or display any book, paper, document, or written or printed matter, in any form, advocating, encouraging or inciting, or having a tendency to encourage or incite the commission of any crime, breach of the peace, or act of violence, or which shall tend to encourage or advocate disrespect for law or of any court or courts of justice, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.' The defendant was accused of editing an article entitled. 'The Nude and the Prudes,' which was published in the Agitator, a small paper issued and circulated in Pierce county. Its publication appeared on July 1, 1911. The appellant apparently concedes that the article does tend to encourage disobedience and disrespect for law; for it clearly does so. But he argues that the statute is unconstitutional, because it abridges the right of free speech and of the press, and also because the statute is uncertain. While the Constitutions of the United States and of this state guarantee the right to freely speak, write, and publish upon all subjects, it is not meant thereby that persons may with impunity advocate disregard of law, or, as said in People v. Most, 171 N.Y. 423, 64 N.E. 175, 58 L. R. A. 509: 'While the right to publish is thus sanctioned and secured, the abuse of that right is excepted from the protection of the Constitution; and the authority to provide for the punishment of such abuse is left to the Legislature. The punishment of those who publish articles which tend to corrupt morals, induce crime, or destroy organized society is essential to the security of freedom and the stability of the state.' This is the rule, and the statute under consideration is not repugnant to the constitutional provisions relating to freedom of speech and of the press.

The appellant also argues and cites numerous cases to the effect that a statute creating an offense must be certain; and that where the law is uncertain, there is no law. This is, no doubt, the rule. We are satisfied it has no application to the statute under consideration. The statute provides: 'Every person who shall willfully * * * edit * * * any * * * paper * * * or printed matter * * * advocating * * * the commission of any crime, * * * or which shall tend to encourage disrespect for law, * * * shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.' It is argued that the phrase 'or which shall tend to encourage disrespect for law' is entirely uncertain. But it has been held that a criminal statute is not void for uncertainty, because it denounces acts which 'tend,' or are 'reasonably calculated,' to bring about prohibited results. Waters-Pierce Water Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86, 29 S.Ct. 220, 53 L.Ed. 417. The act here charged is the editing of an article or printed matter tending to encourage disrespect of law or incite the commission of crime. There can be no doubt about the meaning of the article which defendant edited, or that it tended to incite the commission of crime. The article is not a criticism of the law, but was calculated to, and did, incite the violation of law; and there can be no doubt that any reasonable person informed against under the law as defendant was would...