In my judgment, the statutory provisions on which these prosecutions are based, abridge freedom of speech, press and assembly in violation of the 1st Amendment" ("Black, J, Concurring in Part"). Hence, the Yates decision was a precursor of the things to come. In 1964, the Court declared in the New York Times v. Sullivan that public officials could not recover civil damages for libel unless they prove the libel was committed intentionally or with malice and held that making seditious libel a crime conflicted with the central meaning of the First Amendment ("Fighting Words"). In New York Times v. United States (1971) the Court prevented the federal government from exercising "prior restraint" to stop a newspaper from printing information about the Vietnam War that it wanted to withhold from the public. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) it ruled that advocacy of violence or revolution may be prohibited only if it constitutes a "direct incitement to imminent lawless action that is likely to occur" and applied the 'Brandenburg test' to make similar pro-free speech decisions in Hess v Indiana (1973).

Conclusion

The Yates v the United States decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1957 in which it severely limited the application of the Smith Act to alleged acts of sedition, marked the end of the deplorable witch-hunt of the Communists and political dissenters in the post World War II era. It marked a reversal of the U.S. law to the spirit of the freedom and liberty that were hallmarks of the American struggle of Independence. It also set in motion, other Supreme Court decisions and a series of events leading to the success of the Civil Rights Movement in the sixties as well as the consolidation of the right of free speech and free press.

Works Cited

Adoption and Common Law Background." Find Law for Professionals: Freedom of Expression -- Speech and Press. 2008. April 17, 2008. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/06.html#1

Black, J, Concurring in Part: Supreme Court of the United States...

1957. April 17, 2008. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0298_ZX.html
Fighting words." Indiana University Newsroom. November 17, 2004. April 17, 2008. http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/1725.html

Opinion of the Court: Supreme Court of the United States -- Yates v United States." Cornell University Law School. 1957. April 17, 2008. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0298_ZO.html

Smith, Michael Steven. "About the Smith Act Trials." Modern American Poetry. 1998. April 17, 2008. http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/jerome/smithact.htm

Syllabus: Supreme Court of the United States -- Yates v. United States (No. 6)." Cornell University Law School. 1957. April 17, 2008. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0298_ZS.html

U.S. Code, Title I, 371" Cornell University: Law School Website. 2008. April 17, 2008. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/371.html

Yates v United States" -- Further Readings. West's Encyclopedia of American Law. 1998. April 17, 2008. http://law.jrank.org/pages/12626/Yates-v-United-States.html

The full text of the Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Court explained in its judgment that [even] "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic... [hence] the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent"

It was called the Smith Act since it was proposed by Congressman Howard Smith of Virginia

Yates v U.S.