Fox v. State of Washington

Background

The case involves a person who edited and circulated an article titled "The Nude and the Prudes" and was charged under a Washington law that makes it a crime to publish material that encourages crimes or disrespect for the law (Rem. & Bal. Code, § 2564). The defendant argued the law violated freedom of speech and was too vague. The state courts found the Constitution protects speech but still upheld the statute and affirmed the conviction after a jury found the article encouraged breaches of indecent-exposure laws.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the Washington statute unlawfully restricted speech or was too indefinite to be enforced. The Court explained the state court had reasonably read the law as limited to publications that encourage actual breaches of law, not mere criticism of statutes. The article’s language urging a boycott was seen as encouraging others to persist in conduct that would violate the state’s indecent-exposure laws, and the jury so found. The Court concluded that, when confined to incitements of actual illegal acts, the statute is sufficiently definite and constitutional, and therefore affirmed the conviction.

Real world impact

The decision means states may punish publications that intentionally urge others to commit crimes, while criticism of laws standing alone should not be covered. Authors and publishers who actively encourage illegal acts risk criminal liability if the speech is directed to prompting real breaches. The Court affirmed the state conviction and emphasized that such statutes should be read narrowly to avoid sweeping in protected expression.