PLEASE SIMPLIFY

Explanation:

FERNANDO, J., dissenting:

The line is to be drawn, however, where the wordsamount to an incitement to commit the crime of seditionor rebellion. The state has been reached, to follow theformulation of Cardozo, where thought merges into action.Thus is loyalty shown to the freedom of speech or pressordained by the Constitution. It does not bar the expressionof views affecting the very life of the state, even ifopposed to its fundamental presuppositions. It allows, if it does not require as a matter of fact, that unorthodox ideas be freely ventilated and fully heard. Dissent is not disloyalty.

Such an approach is reinforced by the well-settled constitutional principle "that even though the governmental purposes be legitimate and substantial, they cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved. For precision of regulation is the touchstone in an area so closely related to our most precious freedoms." This is so for "a governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms." ²⁵It is indispensable then that "an over breadth" in the applicability of the statute be avoided. If such be the case, then the line dividing the valid from the constitutionally infirm has been crossed. That for me is the conclusion to be drawn from the wording of the Anti-Subversion Act