Essay on Civil Liberties During World War One

This act made it a crime to “utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag." The Espionage Act made it illegal to teach, suggest, defend, or advocate any criticism of the government (Carroll, 1919). President Wilson managed to push this act through Congress under the argument that there were many citizens of the United States who were pouring the “poison of disloyalty” into the country (Carroll, 1919). While the passing of this act could work in favor towards Wilson being considered a great president due to his ability to persuade Congress to pass it in the first place it also brings up the issue of looking at Neustadt’s model alone. The ability to persuade people to agree with something bad may make a person great but the same should not be true for a leader, especially an elected official like a president. It should be their duty to protect the rights of their people and not infringe upon them. The ability to persuade others to infringe upon those rights should not be attributed towards a “good” or “great” leader, especially since doing so would violate the Landy and Milkis model about how a good president should be like a (stern) father towards

The use of U.S Government Acts to surveil it's citizens and corrupt can be traced back to 1917, when the Espionage Act first took place. The Espionage Act was a law which prohibited many forms of speech, including any "disloyal,profane,scurrilous, or abusive" language about the form of Government in the United States. This law was later extended under the name of The sedition act of 1918 to "cover a broader range of offenses,notably speech and expression of opinion" that obstructed the war effort.As time passed the laws were slowly extended, it was until the Red Scare hysteria when the fear of the bolshevist and anarchism kicked in and the justification was "the safety of the people".To Avoid for

American citizens were not pleased with the fact their rights were being violated. The Sedition Acts made it illegal for newspaper editors to criticize the government. The government imposed punishments for editors who violated this law. This act violated the freedom of the press, which is under the First Amendment. Stated in Document F, “the liberty of conscience and the press cannot be canceled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States.” By even appointing these acts, it meant the federal government was exercising a power that was never given to them in the first place. Document F states, “Alien and Seditions Acts, passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power nowhere delegated to the federal government”. The administration’s foreign policy was not protecting Americans, rather violating their

During World War I, the Progressives, who are a political party later called the American Civil Liberties Union, talked about our individual rights as citizens and the liberty we fought for. Before we entered the war, our legal rights were taken away, and left many in the U.S very upset and worried. “In 1917, a group of Pacifists, Progressive shocked by wartime attacks on freedom of speech, and lawyers outraged at what they considered violations of Americans’ legal rights formed the Civil Liberal Bureau.” (The Fight for Civil Liberties, pg. 135). With no one saying anything or speaking up, it put people in the position to be concerned because they weren’t allowed to say what

It was the time of world war 1, in August 1918, there was a group of immigrants who were Russian, they was arrested in New York City and they were charged because they were disrespectful to the Sedition Act of 1918, which made it a crime to use abusive language to the government of the United States. Or to the prosecution of the war. Their offense hand out pamphlets that complained the U.S. military's recent deployment of troops to Russia and that, in one case, supported a factories producing military goods. A few months later, the group which included a young rebel named Jacob Abrams was strained, sentenced, and was sent to prison for 15 to 20 years. Their beliefs were hardly unique. Unluckily, during the war to make the world safe for equality the federal government legislated some of the most severe boundaries on civil liberties at home in the country's history in 1919 and 1920, the attorney general reported 877 beliefs under the 1918 Sedition Act and other similar federal laws. In March 1919, while Abrams and his countrymen were appealing their case, the Supreme Court heard two other First Amendment cases dealing with the beliefs of antiwar socialists Scheck v. United States and Debs v. United States.

In the early 20th Century, the United States endured a time of political unrest. During World War I, fears of socialism and communism entered the psyche of the United States and culminated in the Red Scare. Hundreds of American citizens – particularly immigrants – suffered unprecedented arrests and deportations (Fariello 4). During this time, Charles Schenck, secretary of the Socialist Party of America, actively opposed the war. Due to Schenck’s efforts, the organization distributed thousands of leaflets criticizing conscription and encouraging readers to assert rights against the draft and intimidation (Schenck v. United States 1). In the 1919 case Schenck v. United States, the defendants were charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917 by causing and attempting to cause insubordination in U.S. military forces by distributing a document denouncing the draft in name of the 13th amendment (Schenck 1). When insurgency and fear continued, Congress amended the Espionage Act with the Sedition Act, which limited many more forms of speech (Fariello 14).

As the years went by, different cases led to different tests and resolutions that decided where speech is not protected by the First Amendment. In 1919 the case Schenck v. United States led to the creation of the Clear and Present Danger Test, in this case Schenck, an anti-war socialist, was convicted for distributing pamphlets against the draft, claiming that it was unconstitutional because it was involuntary servitude and that that was banned under the Thirteenth Amendment. This is a particular difficult case to see because one can object that for him is not about supporting Germany, but giving the people the right to decide what to do, and that he is only exercising his right to freedom of speech. But Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that this freedom is not absolute, especially in war time, Holmes argued that his action will create a chaos that will put people in danger, he makes the example of screaming "fire" in a movie theater he said "the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent". The reasons the Court has to pass this test are more than reasonable, one of the duties of the government is to ensure the safety and wellbeing of its citizens and if we weight the

The first amendment states that: “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.” People all around world were persecuted because they voiced their opinions about their religion and/or politics. It would be hypocritical for people like John Adams and Patrick Henry to voice opinions about fighting for independence during the Revolutionary War and then say that you can’t speak freely. It would

Charles T. Schenck was a well known socialist and believed that World War 1 was one of only capitalists interest. While his beliefs might not have been the most loyal at the time they weren’t terroristic. Stating or distributing them to others in whatever volume should not have been against the law in the first place. The founding fathers of our great and free nation did not see fit to include limitations to the first amendment. Yet, an innocent man was still found guilty for simply stating his mind. The Supreme Court suggested that Charles presented a “ clear and present danger.” However the court never suggested who Schenck's words were a danger to. Some might argue that Charles was a danger to the nation as a whole because of how widely

In the entire history of American concerning assaults on civil liberties, World War one and its aftermath that really provoked the interest of many historians. When the United States entered the war in April 1917, there was strong opposition to both the war and the draft. Many citizens argued that the goal of the United States was not to “make the world safe for democracy,” but to protect the investments of the wealthy. President Woodrow Wilson had little patience for such opposition. On 1917 President Wilsons wanted to enter the World War 1, with the motive to protect human rights with the help of government, “we enter this war only where we are clearly forced into it because there are no other means of defending out rights”, (declaration

The government also passed laws to restrict freedom of speech, the Espionage Act of 1917 that prohibited spying and interfering with the draft and making false statements that might impede military success and the Sedition Act in 1918, which made it a crime to speak out against the government. Americanization began the act of forcing immigrants to

Imagine having to choose just one of the civil liberties. Would you be able to choose just one when there are so many that we need and use on the daily? All of the civil liberties save us a lot of everyday stress but if I had to choose just one, I would choose the second amendment, that states, “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

December of 1917, Charles Schenck was convicted of violating the Espionage Act, which protected against any “insidious methods of internal hostile activities”(1). Schenck attempted to distribute flyers encouraging protest against the WW1 military draft. Schenck argued that the draft was a form of slavery/ involuntary servitude, and should be unlawful according the 13th Amendment. Schenck was arrested over intending to cause an uproar or violent movement, which are prohibited and protected through the Espionage Act. Additionally Schenck argued

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all of which are our God given rights as stated in the "Declaration of Independence" by Thomas Jefferson in 1776. Liberty is my main focus for this essay. Liberty as defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as "the condition of being free from restriction or control, and the right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing." As Americans we have never quite been truly liberated. The government has always had some sort of laws and regulations to restrict and control us from total liberty.

Civil liberties of prisoners should always be considered in the event of detainment. During the Bush administration, prisoners were kept at GITMO as a result of the War on Terror. The prisoners were kept beyond the reach of the constitution of the United States of America. Due to the harsh circumstances, the Supreme Court had a responsibility to ensure that the prisoners had rights that were protected by the Writ of Habeas Corpus, which gave orders to shut down the GITMO facilities. Habeas corpus has contributions, which assist in determining whether individuals who are jailed have been imprisoned through the legal processes (Foley, 2007). Being detained with the Writ of Habeas Corpus in place ensures that the reason behind incarcerating an individual is legal.