Freedom of Speech as Defined by Law Essay

Government censorship continued with the passing of the Espionage Act in 1917 and the Sedition Amendment in 1918. The Espionage Act and Sedition Amendment condemned any antiwar activity or desecrating of the government, Constitution, flag, or military. The American public could not have an opinion, unless that opinion supported the war and government. Even Wilson stated, "Woe be to the man or group of men that seeks to stand in our way." Government censorship and “unpatriotic acts”, as deemed by the Espionage Act and Sedition Amendment, gave birth to a suspicious nation.

After the Espionage Act, came the Sedition Act in 1918. The Sedition Act did not allow language “tending to incite, provoke, and encourage resistance to the United States in said war”. This Act infringed further on people’s First Amendment rights. Individuals’ abilities to express themselves were curtailed. One of the people that went against this Act was Joseph Abrams. Abrams was a Russian immigrant who did not agree with the Americans invading Russia. Because of this,

The Supreme Court's decision was the right decision because when determining something that involves the First Amendment issues, the Court must look at the circumstances surrounding the speech for the safety of the general. In peaceful times this wouldn't be a big thing and Schenck would have had full protection. However, Schenck caused harm including: fear, intimidation, insult, and emotional trauma to those who may have received his pamphlets whom most were the drafted military personnel. Since the United States was at war, the circumstances surrounding whether this was free speech or not changed Schenck had no right to integrate the military draftees (Alonso, Karen. Schenck v. United States: restrictions on free speech). The case was taken as if it was

The case New York Times Co. Vs United States in summary was a first amendment battle between the United States government and the prominent newspaper cooperation New York Times in 1971. The premises of this legal battle was based on the New York Times reporter Daniel Ellsberg publishing in excerpts illegally leaked, classified documents containing the United States involvement in the Vietnam War specifically on the anticipated death counts (Institution, 2015, p. n .p). However, The United States government finding out about leakage placed a prior restraint also known as “government action that prohibits speech or other expression before it can take place” on New York Times cooperation based on National Security grounds (Prior Restraint, 2015). The case, despite the over powering strength of the nation and the accusations against the New York Times Cooperation the case was ruled in favor of the New York Times by the Supreme Court (Curry, Riley, & Battistoni, 2015, p. 458).

Before World War One, people were allowed to watch, write, or say anything they wanted to as long as they weren’t harming anyone. However, the Republicans and Democrats were arguing over whether or not we should have more censorship. The Democrats wanted more censorship, but Republicans didn’t want more censorship. As it was stated in document 1, they didn’t want the president to be able to block himself from getting criticism. The Espionage and Sedition Acts were put in place so that people couldn’t interfere with the success of the army, it was to help find people who were disloyal to the army.

One editor in particular named Matthew Lyon who represented Vermont stated that President John Adams “unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and self-avarice” (Adams) caused him to be imprisoned. The Sedition Act didn’t protect individual’s rights under the 1st Amendment which 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”

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.

Government censorship continued with the passing of the Espionage Act in 1917 and the Sedition Amendment in 1918. The Espionage Act and Sedition Amendment condemned any antiwar activity or desecrating of the government, Constitution, flag, or military. The American public were almost at a point where they could not have an opinion, unless in support of the war and government. Even Wilson stated, "Woe be to the man or group of men that seeks to stand in our way." These acts of censorship gave birth to a suspicious nation.

1) Constitutional Question: Does the Free Speech Clause, of the First Amendment, protect Schenck from the Espionage Act of 1917?

Of the many arrests made during the reign of the Sedition Act of 1918, one of the most notorious case was that of Eugene Victor Debs. Debs was an outspoken and proud Socialist. He had run President in four consecutive elections, even receiving 6% of the popular vote in the 1912 elections against American political powerhouses Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft. After delivering an anti-war speech in Canton, Ohio in the summer of 1918, Debs was arrested and sentenced to 10 years in prison for violating the Sedition Act. Debs fought the charges, and his case eventually reached the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes upheld the conviction, maintaining his belief that freedom of speech and expression could

2. The law: This case involves the Espionage Act and the first amendment. United States convicted Schenck on the basis of violating the Espionage Act, specifically Section 3, which states when the United States is at war, people can not willingly cause or attempt to cause disloyalty and refusal of duty in the military or naval forces of the United States. On the defendant side, Schenck argued that his First Amendment right, specifically the freedom of speech provision, was being violated.

In Schenck v. United States, Charles Schneck was a member of the executive committee of the Socialist party during WW1. He was in charge of printing and distributing of 15,000 fliers to discourage men from submitting to the draft. The U.S government under Woodrow Wilson however had passed the Espionage act of 1917, which had made speech like Schneck’s illegal because it acted as interference to military operations and recruitment. The Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that Schneck’s conviction was constitutional. The reasoning given was that because this was a time of war 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 that they will bring

After reading Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, I personally have become to consider Oliver Wendell Holmes a First Amendment hero. There are two cases the Lewis describes from the book where I really feel Holmes made an impact on free speech as it is today, Abrams vs. United States and Schenck vs. United States. In the case of Abrams vs. United States, four radicals threw leaflets from the top of a New York building urging a general strike in protest against Woodrow Wilsons decision to send American troops into Russia. They were charged for “attempt to hurt the war against Germany,” and all four were convicted. Holmes made a powerful argument he said that “to punish speech that produces and is intended to produce a clear and imminent danger that will bring about forthwith certain substantive evils.” (Lewis,

The New York Times sought their case on the support of protections entailed by the Constitution. This premise of protection was enveloped more specifically in the enumerated rights of the first amendment. In spite of the counter-arguments against the amendment being absolute, Justices argued the word “security” should not be manipulated “to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment” (“NEW YORK TIMES v.”). In the case the threats of security were defined as: "clearly result in great harm to the nation," and would culminate in "the death of soldiers, the destruction of alliances, the greatly increased difficulty of negotiation with our enemies, the inability of our diplomats to negotiate. . ." (“NEW YORK TIMES CO. v.”). The expressed exploitation of security lacked in argument. This was perceived by the absence of immediate harm suffered by American forces or American agenda. It was also noted by the court,” The most recent of the material, it is said, dates no later than 1968, already about three years ago, and the Times itself took three months to formulate its plan of procedure and, thus, deprived its public for that period” (“NEW YORK TIMES CO. v.”). With this preemptive plan the court recognized this publication as a radical call for national agenda

In this essay, I will analyze John Mill’s argument on freedom of speech in relation to Schenck v. United States court case. During the early 20th century, the U.S. government decided to join World War I. Hence, they held a draft, by choosing random male citizens who were in between the age of eighteen to forty-five to fight for the country. At this time, Charles T. Schenck was the general secretary of the U.S. socialist party in Philadelphia in the early 20th century. He was against the U.S. entry into World War I and its implementation of a military draft. Thus, he distributed over twenty thousand flyers to U.S. citizens in objection against the draft process. Therefore, the government arrested him for violating the Espionage Act. The congress created this act in 1917 to prohibit any action