Nat'l Security v. Free Speech (Chris)

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states, “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.” This cherished right has been actively fought for since its creation. Unfortunately, during times of war, attack, or panic, this right has been in some ways flat out suspended in the name of national security.
Encarta.msn.com defined national security as “protection of nation from danger: the protection of a nation from attack or other danger by maintaining adequate armed forces and guarding state secrets.” Supposedly, in order to protect the nation from danger, free speech has been suspended at certain times in our history and today. As a result of this, it has received massive criticism, as well as for the suspension of civil liberties and human rights.
Historically, there have been several laws passed during wartime that have restricted free speech in the name of national security. World War I was a major example of this. During this war, the Espionage Act of 1917 was passed, which made it a crime to interfere with the armed forces process. Then the Sedition Act of 1918 was passed, which made it a crime to simply speak out against the government. Eugene V. Debs received ten years in prison for saying, ‘“master classes” caused the war, the “subject classes” would have to fight it.”
Another famous instance in which free speech wrestled with national security was the landmark Supreme Court decision in the New York Times v. U.S. (1971). Fortunately, in this instance, during wartime, the court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the papers not to be able to print the then-classified Pentagon Papers. In order to claim prior restraint, the government had to demonstrate how publication of this information would cause a “grave and irreparable” danger.

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.

Schenck v. US (1919)

1)Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) Decided by the White Court

2)Historical Background: Before we get into the specifics of the case, we must
understand the background history and culture of the time period in which it took place. At the time, the United States was involved in World War I and many American dissenters actively protested this involvement. In order to weaken or even abolish this anti-war movement, Congress passed various laws threatening free speech (often during wartime free speech rights are vulnerable to restraint). These laws included the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, which “prohibited saying or publishing anything disrespectful to the government of the United States.” Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists took the brunt of these laws. For example, Eugene V. Debs, leader of the Socialist Party, was sentenced to ten years in prison for saying ‘“master classes” caused the war, the “subject classes” would have to fight it.”

Facts: The defendant, Charles Schenck was the general secretary of the Socialist Party. He violated the Espionage Act of 1917 by mailing 15,000 leaflets insisting draftees and soldiers to resist the draft. He was arrested for this act of anti-war protest, being charged with “causing and attempting to cause insubordination in the military and naval forces of the United States” as well as disrupting the draft. Next, he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison. So, he went to the last resort, the Supreme Court. The government would argue that Schenck is guilty for breaking the law, but Schenck’s argument was that his and his entire party’s First Amendment rights were stripped away and that the war was an immoral war being fought by the working class, but for the upper class.
3)Issue: Were Schenck’s statements in the leaflets protected by the First Amendment? According to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” if this is true then was the Espionage Act and similar laws unconstitutional? Should Schenck stay behind bars?

4) Decision: The Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, upheld Schenck’s conviction. Were Schenck’s statements protected as political speech? No. Was the Espionage Act and similar laws unconstitutional? No. Should Schenck stay behind bars? Yes. All in the eyes of the Supreme Court!

5) Reason: According to the Supreme Court, Schenck’s statements put people in danger. This case created the famous, “clear and present danger” rule. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” So, was the Espionage Act constitutional? The Supreme Court argued that the law was reasonable in wartime and that such “political speech” was not protected, especially if it caused harm to others.

My opinion: I wholeheartedly disagree with every decision the Supreme Court made in this case and I feel we have come incredibly far (in terms of free speech rights), even in our modern, Patriot Act driven times. If the Supreme Court were faced with this case today they would absolutely overrule Schenck’s conviction. At least I hope so! Following this case, various Supreme Court decisions ruled in favor of similar incendiary speech, contradicting this decision. Firstly, the leaflets did not contain any statements making threats to draftees or soldiers if they did not conform to Schenck’s pleas. He merely urged men to resist the draft. Secondly, I think the Espionage Act was a “clear and present danger” in itself! The law was unconstitutional because it severed Americans’ right to free speech and specifically persecuted dissident voices, like the Socialist Party. Finally, I think all charges against Schenck and any other First Wave of the Red Scare victims should have been dropped, if they were clearly unconstitutional, as in this case. This event in our history is highly significant because it demonstrates how easily our civil liberties can be removed; a theme unfortunately not foreign to us in modern times.

I used http://www.oyez.org/cases and http:/www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases and my conscience.

UN Adopts Anti-Free Speech Measure

GENEVA (AP) — The U.N.'s top human rights body has approved a proposal by Muslim nations urging the passage of laws protecting religion from criticism.

Members of the Human Rights Council voted 23 in favor of a resolution Thursday to combat "defamation of religion." Eleven nations, mostly from the West, opposed the resolution and 13 countries abstained.

The resolution was proposed by Pakistan. Muslim countries have cited the inflammatory effect of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as an example of unacceptable free speech.

Critics say the resolution, while not binding, will have a chilling effect on free speech and may worsen relations between faiths.

Unacceptable free speech is still free speech and must be protected.

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.

Jet Blue, TSA Settle in T-Shirt Case

JetBlue Airways and two officials with the U.S. Transportation Security Administration have paid $240,000 to settle charges that they illegally discriminated against an Iraqi-born U.S. resident who was barred from a flight until he covered his T-shirt, which carried an Arabic phrase, his attorneys announced yesterday.

The settlement paid Friday to Raed Jarrar, 30, of the District, ranks among the largest of its kind since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented him. The payment came as another U.S. airline apologized to nine Muslim American passengers from the Washington area who were removed from a New Year's Day flight out of Reagan National Airport, prompting a discrimination complaint by a Muslim civil rights group. - Washington Post

The shirt, which reads "We will not be silent" in Arabic and English, is a bit provocative, but this guy has every right to wear it. The TSA, by nature, has to be strict on these issues.

EU Resists Push To Limit Free Speech

GENEVA – Islamic proposals to ban criticism of religion, which have gathered strength since the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad two years ago, threaten to derail an already troubled U.N. anti-racism conference planned for next year.

The European Union rejects suggestions by Algeria — backed by other Muslim and African countries — that limits on free speech are needed to stop the publication of offensive articles and images.

Supporters of the proposal, who have been pushing for such a ban to be included in international anti-discrimination charters, want it discussed in April at a high-level United Nations anti-racism meeting in Geneva. - Yahoo!

Good job, EU.