Nat'l Security v. Free Speech

Balancing free speech and national security has long been an issue for the United States Government. The socialist and anti-war beliefs of Eugene V. Debs opposed Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy stand; his dissidence alone caused him to be arrested, along with nearly 2,000 others. A few years later, the case of Gitlow v. New York in 1925 ended in a Supreme Court decision that restrictions can be placed on free speech if certain words involve “danger to the public peace and to the security of the state.” A couple of decades later in the 1940s and 1950s, there was a fear that the Communists might overthrow and destroy the government. The Smith Act of 1940 punished the advocacy of overthrowing the government, limiting the speech of leftists in exchange for national security. In the 1957 Yates v. United States case, a modification was placed on the Smith Act that distinguished between a written statement of an idea and the advocacy that a certain action be taken.

Since September 11, the issue of national security and free speech has been thoroughly examined, especially after the passage of the Patriot Act. Protecting citizens from terrorism has taken the form of limiting free speech and 1^st Amendment rights. FBI agents are allowed to read e-mails and listen into private phone calls. Keeping that in mind, people are fearful of saying the wrong thing, which itself is a limit of free speech. Also, the government can deem people associated with certain political groups terrorists if it feels that they are a threat to national security. Speeches, letters to the editor, or any comment about the government and its actions that undermines its anti-terrorism efforts can be potentially silenced under the Patriot Act. While maintaining a certain level of national security is very important, violating the 1^st Amendment is never acceptable. In fact, a government that takes away our speech is a government that should be overthrown.

My View of 1st Amendment Cases

Case 1: A city passes an ordinance prohibiting drive-in movies from showing films containing nudity if the screen was visible to passerby on the street. A movie theater manager protested, claiming that he had a First Amendment right to show such films, even if they could be seen from the street.

My View: The key words are "visible to passerby on the street." Since the films are being shown in public, the city does have a right to legislate against the showing of nudity since it affects the community.

Case 2: A man wants to enter a military reservation to pass out campaign literature and discuss issues with service personnel. The military denied him access on grounds that regulations prohibit partisan campaigning on military bases.

My View: The military does not have the right to deny the man access to the reservation. Since his money in part funds the reservation, his speech is protected.

Case 3: A town passed an ordinance forbidding the placing of "For Sale" or "Sold" signs in front of homes in racially changing neighborhoods. The purpose was to reduce "white flight" and panic selling. A realty firm protested, claiming that its freedom of speech was being abridged.

My View: The town can't legislate on matters dealing with private property.

Case 4: A girl was raped and died. A local television station broadcast the name of the girl, having obtained it from court records. Her father sued, claiming that his family's right to privacy had been violated. The television station claimed that it had a right under the 1st Amendment to broadcast the name.

My View: As long as the television station did not steal the record, it has the right to publish the name of the girl as part of its freedom of speech.

Case 5: Florida passed a law giving a political candidate the right to equal space in a newspaper that had published attacks on him. A newspaper claimed that this violated the freedom of the press to publish what it wants.

My View: The newspaper can publish whatever it wants because it does not have to adhere to the 1st Amendment.

Case 6: Zacchini is a "human cannonball" whose entire act was filmed and broadcast by a television station. Zacchini sued the station, claiming that his earning power had been reduced. The station replied that it had a 1st Amendment right to broadcast such events.

My View: If Zacchini allows people to videotape his act, he can not regulate what they do with the footage.

*These cases were adopted from American Government Tenth Edition by James Q. Wilson and John Dululio Jr. The exact text as it appears in the book has been shortened/abbreviated.

Man Pulled Over For Anti-Obama Sign

An Oklahoma City police officer wrongly pulled over a man last week and confiscated an anti-President Barack Obama sign the man had on his vehicle.

The officer misinterpreted the sign as threatening, said Capt. Steve McCool, of the Oklahoma City Police Department, and took the sign, which read "Abort Obama, not the unborn."

Chip Harrison said he was driving to work when a police car followed him for several miles and then signaled for him to pull over.

''I pulled over, knowing I hadn't done anything wrong"; Harrison said in a recent phone interview.

When the officer asked Harrison if he knew why he had been pulled over, Harrison said he did not.

''They said, 'It's because of the sign in your window,'" Harrison said.

''It's not meant to be a threat, it's a statement about abortion," Harrison said.

He said he disagrees with the president's position on abortion.

''I asked the officer, 'Do you know what abort means?'" Harrison said. "He said, 'Yeah, it means to kill.' I said, 'No, it means to remove or terminate.'" - Newsok.com

This should be absolutely no issue.