In the case gitlow v. new york, gitlow argued that his first amendment rights were being violated. that he couldn't be convicted of the same crime twice. that his sixth amendment rights guaranteed him the right to a jury. that he couldn't be jailed without being charged with a crime.

that his First Amendment rights were being violated.

Gitlow was arrested for spreading socialist ideology and suggesting people should strike and overthrow the government. He was convicted under an anarchy law in New York for suggesting people should overthrow the government. Gitlow argued his First Amendment right was violated because no actions occurred as a result of his pamphlets or speeches. Therefore he was punished for his words.

The Supreme Court decided with New York and upheld their anarchy law as a reasonable limit on the First Amendment. The Court cited the Schneck v. US case as a precedent that a person could not incite citizens against the government and be protected under the First Amendment.

Gitlow's argument in the case of Gitlow v. New York was that his First Amendment rights were being violated.

The Supreme Court ruled against Gitlow in this matter because they claimed that there were limits to the First Amendment and one such limit was inciting a rebellion.

In conclusion, option A is correct.

Find out more on the limits to the First Amendment at link.

maybe you should ask google for the answer for the question you're looking for

the correct answer would in fact be b. (: