Abrams And Sedition Act Case

After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 the United States became a very different place. This drastic change was caused by the initial emotional reactions that American citizens, as well as government leaders had towards the tragic event. The government, in an effort to assure that these events never happen again passed the USA PATRIOT Act, which is an acronym that stands for the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. The major goal of this act is to combat terrorism by giving the government more leeway in what areas they are allowed to use their surveillance tools and also to what circumstances these tools can be used. The major issue that arise with this act are the fact that many of the act can be seen as unconstitutional.

For example, when Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in 1984, many Americans were outraged and blatantly critical of Johnson's actions, just as the author expresses his disagreement in the political cartoon (Doc 2). However, after the Supreme Court ruled that this action was symbolic speech, and therefore protected, some Americans began to reshape their thoughts. As written by the Supreme Court, "the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." This change in thinking for Americans has opened a door to new freedoms and more ways to express opinions in society, further protecting our rights to free speech. The Bill of Rights also leaves interpretation of many laws up the states, therefore protecting us from an all powerful national government.

The First Amendment did not protect speech was given strength orders but however it was not following directions, since, "when a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their stream of language production will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." In other words, the court held, the circumstances of wartime permit greater restrictions on free speech than would be allowable during peacetime.

After the terrorist attacks on to New York City on September 11, 2001, there have been several adjustments to the legislature. Since, this tragic event had an impact on all citizens in this county, new agencies were created and policies at airports were changed as method of prevention for future terrorism incidents. As a consequence, the Congress passed the U.S. PATRIOT Act, which was established to increase airport security and prevent future deadly terrorist attacks. The acronym stands for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act” (Pitt, 2011, p. 54). Even though the PATRIOT Act was enacted for safety reasons, there have been various law suits claiming that innocent members of the Muslim population are being targeted. Pitt (2011) argued in his research that the fairness of this law is questionable, since there is a considerable amount of evidence proving that Muslims are vulnerable to be judged by their race and

At this point, society had to decide whether these limits on speech aligned with its interests. Holmes similarly had to consider whether to forfeit his belief that ideals in the Constitution and its Amendments exist absolutely (Cohen 27). In the end, he decided that a balance between absolute ideals and the responsibilities of Congress must prevail as the most fair compromise – or standard. In this fairness, the Court affords

United States when Justice Holmes said, “the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger.” This test allows the government to stop speech which induces an idea. More liberal interpretations of this test could lead to the conclusion that Sean Carter is responsible for encouraging violence when he emphasizes the need to “fight” because he might give someone an idea to be violent. As Justice Douglas said in concurrence with the Brandenburg v. Ohio decision, under Schenck’s conditions, “the only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker’s enthusiasm for the result.” In this sense, the language of Section 3 subjects Carter’s opinions to undue scrutiny and responsibility. Many people have opinions about, and advocate for, anarchy; speaking such thoughts out loud should not be considered a crime. To quote Douglas once again, “The quality of advocacy turns on the depth of the conviction, and government has no power to invade that sanctuary of belief” (Brandenburg v. Ohio, Douglas

America has grown as a country due to changes being made possible with having Freedom of Speech. Alas, there are times where there must be a line drawn to protect American citizens under the first amendment. Sometimes cases brought to the Supreme Court push the boundaries on what people think is right and wrong regarding to Freedom of Speech. Brandenburg v. Ohio is a case that focuses on how we came up with

Many cases early on that consisted of free speech issues tended to incorporate censorship by the government. When we entered the nineteen hundreds the Supreme Court was involved with looking at cases where citizens published or spoke speech and found that they were being punished for their actions. The tests or standard of that timeframe was the bad tendency test, the bad tendency test was established to give reasoning for the government to limit the freedom of speech if the speech has a tendency to stir up or cause illegal activity like a riot. It seemed that the bad tendency test would be over shadowed by the clear and present danger test, this test gives the government

The September 11th terrorist attacks brought fear and anger to all Americans. People of all races did not know how to react to such a horrific tragedy. After these attacks were carried, former President George W. Bush declared a “War on Terror”. While this was happening Muslims in the U.S were in the middle of this issue. The War on Terror was focused on Muslim Citizens in the U.S due to media outlets and many people criticizing all people that are Muslims are radicals. With all said The Patriot Act was passed which many criticized because it was argued conflicted personal liberties and public discussion. George W. Bush praised the act for making America safer. However, it was a plan targeted primarily at Muslims and Arabs . Like American governments have done in the past acts like the Espionage and Sedition Act this is another one of acts that aim to target one group . “War on Terror” was not only declared on the real terrorists of Al Qaeda but it was also declared on many Muslims in the United States with the passing of the Patriot Act. Under these circumstances people’s rights are taken away and citizens and non citizens who are Muslims would be mostly of focused upon. It would give states the right to hold and investigate suspected terrorists with insufficient evidence .The Patriot Act affects people rights, goes against the Constitution and can invade people’s privacy by targeting one group and not given the rights people of the American government deserve.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 our country underwent a change that has drastically affected the fundamental values that our founding fathers instilled in this country. Since that tragic day in September the aftermath of the attacks has started to implicate our Civil Liberties that in this country we hold so dear. Just 45 days after the September 11 attacks, with virtually no debate, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act on October 5th, 2001. This act expanded the surveillance powers of domestic law enforcement and international intelligence agencies. The controversy that must be discussed is whether or not this legislation fully or in part has violated the Constitution and/or endangered our civil

The First Amendment of The Constitution is acknowledged to be the guarantor of Freedom of Speech clause in the United States. The same level of recognition Freedom of Speech receives is also given to the controversy that is has created. The ambiguity that revolves around Freedom of Speech has led to question its validity, due to the scope in which each case is presented, most notably at the time in which the United States was experiencing social and political ideologies. Thus, the Supreme Court had the arduous task of intervening and creating measures that would distinguish constitutionally protected speech and speech that would be regulated. The two most important interpretations that have allowed the Supreme Court to distinguish constitutionally

After the devastating attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, this country scrambled to take action to provide future protection. New techniques had to be developed to protect the nation from the menace of terrorism. Along with the new techniques came the decision to enact laws that some believed crossed the threshold of violating civil liberties this county and those living in it were guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. “On October 26, 2001, the Public Law 107-56, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, also known as the USA Patriot Act, was signed into effect” (Stern, 2004, p. 1112). While speaking to Congress,

In Part Three, Cole and Dempsey focus on the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996, a forerunner to the Patriot Act that helped to establish the legal framework for today’s domestic war on terror. The act allows the State Department to designate Foreign Terrorist Organizations in a process that is highly politicized and lacking sufficient objective criteria. It also makes it possible for government prosecutors to bring cases against individuals without proof that they have engaged in terrorism, aided or abetted terrorists, or planned to commit terrorism. Under the 1996 act, the government may freeze the assets of designated terrorist groups and use secret witnesses against those suspected of having links to terrorists.

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court adopted the term "actual malice," giving it constitutional significance (Wikipedia, 2016). After the ruling of this case the outlook emphasized that the first amendment might even encourage as aggressive press, appreciating the protection from lawsuits in public official libel cases the news media became more forceful which in the years following covered the civil rights movement, the Vietnam war, and the Watergate scandal (Trager et al, 2016). After The New York Times Co v. Sullivan the phrase “freedom of speech” had a whole new

The Supreme Court later viewed two speech cases that violated state laws and the protection against radical speech. The first one dealt in Ruthenberg v. Michigan with Brandeis dissenting and deciding to go further than previously established when dealing with the freedom of speech. However, Ruthenberg died and the case was dismissed. He will later use his thoughts that he established on this dissent in the case of Whitney v. California (1927). The court held that the Due Process did not protect the individual when they threatened political and social structures. Brandeis concurred with the majority as the issue of freedom of speech had not been raised and instead focused on the Due Process clause and the 14th Amendment. Brandeis thought “has been described as republican ‘civic virtue or courage’ and was seen in not only his views on speech but on democratic society as a whole.” Justice Holmes had established the idea of the clear and present danger test when dealing with free speech yet Brandeis did not think that this was enough. Brandeis thought that citizenship in a democratic society had great privileges along with responsibility. The citizen then should have the opportunity to debate and participate in public manners that dealt with the democratic society. These ideas included even the radical ones. However, even the radical ideas had some value as they made people think about their own views and values they believed in. They also needed to have an understanding on all-sides of the issues. This is seen in his opinion as not just being ideal but also practical and giving purpose to the interactions with the citizen body. This opinion and his views helped mold American Constitutional law with the 1st Amendment, which was later used and expanded by others in the Supreme Court.