Schenck V. United States Court Case Analysis

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.

The main reason for this legislation was to keep the United States isolated from the rest of the world, which many Americans believed would keep us safe from an attack on America. Americans were so afraid of a threat to the country, the United States disregarded one of its most beloved Amendments of the Constitution, the First which gives citizens the freedom of speech.

F). She was convicted for going against the Espionage Act although it was seen unfair by several citizens including Eugene Debs who created a whole speech against it. He was later convicted for violating the Sedition Act. The Sedition Act stated that no American citizen could do anything that went against the United States’ government (Doc. J). Many people were put into prison for violating this despite it being controversial and possibly denying one’s freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment. In addition, propaganda was used in order to support the war. For example, the poster with Uncle Sam and the words “I want you for U.S. Army” was used all over the place (Doc. E). This got citizens to support the war by enlisting in the army. It was an indirect approach that the government used to control the citizens into supporting the war. Also, President Wilson established a law forcing men to enlist in the army (Doc. I). This was a clear way that the government took more control within what American citizens did. It essentially used force to get citizens to support the war that they had entered despite their personal beliefs. The United States’ government became more involved by creating new laws, forcing citizens to support the war.

In the late 1910’s Congress passed the Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1917 and 1918 (ESA). Historian Howard Zinn sees the ESA as a malicious attempt by the U.S. government to “imprison Americans who spoke or wrote out against the war.” Zinn’s argument dismisses the idea that the ESA was a necessary step to ensure the integrity of a nation at war, as he believes that America’s entrance into WWI was motivated by a selfish desire for monetary gain and economic expansion. Zinn asserts that the U.S. government allowed American investors to “tie American finance closely to the interest of a British victory.” While Zinn’s ideas are well-argued and supported, they tell only one side of a complicated story. James West Davidson, however, tells another. He argues that at the time of the ESA’s passing, the United States had been pushed by German action into the first global conflict in its history. He describes the German U-boat attacks that were devastating the Atlantic, and the reports of “cracking morale” that were trickling in from the front lines, and asserts that the ESA was passed by a desperate government in order to combat protestors who attempted to sway public opinion against the war. Davidson never explicitly describes the ESA as good or bad, but he provides some valuable context that Zinn ignores. The ESA was not, as Zinn alleges, a heartless assault on the American coordinated “with all the power of the federal government and the money of big business behind it,” nor was it a shining example of individual freedoms. It was a complicated document with complicated implications, and consideration of only Zinn’s or Davidson’s writings eliminates the intricacies that were inherent in the ESA, and the circumstances that lead to its

“Are Schenck's actions (words, expression) protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment?”

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

This act very blatantly restricted freedom of expression but was passed anyways. This is because judicial review was still very new and the Congress that passed it was mostly federalist and John Adam the president at the time was also a federalist. These laws were meant to suppress Republican opposition of the laws passed by the congress regarding immigrants. When Thomas Jefferson became president the laws were no longer used And remained that way until later wars. In 1917 during WWI this law was brought back in the form of the Espionage Act which was also referred to as the Sedition Act. The main purpose of this law was to supersede existing espionage laws and weren't much different from them but it went a step further it deemed a criminal anyone who, "when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies and whoever when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or

Therefore the Federal legislation passed a law making it illegal to speak against the government also known as the Espionage Act

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.

Much like how President Wilson’s racial dealings showed the dark sides of his being a passive-negative president his vast support and activity for the Espionage Act also show some of these dark sides. Similar to how Wilson supported segregation for the sake of peace the same logic seemed to have applied to national peace during the First World War. All evidence again seems to point to the fact that President Wilson meant the Espionage Act to be an asset to the nation and help defend it against foreign subterfuge yet it is hard to believe that President Wilson wasn’t aware of the negative impacts such legislation would have (Carroll, 1919). It was American citizens more than anyone else who suffered under the Espionage Act and its enforcement. The act had made it virtually illegal to criticize the war or the government, restricting freedom of speech in a way that had never before been known in the United States (Carroll, 1919). It is hard to imagine that President Wilson, an intellectual and very intelligent man, had no idea that such a thing would occur. Instead it would appear to be far more likely that President Wilson knew of at least some of the negative consequences that the act was going to have and that he ultimately decided that it was better to limit free speech for the sake of peace and security (Stone, 2003).

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

out (there were more than 30 different pamphlets) to the public. These pamphlets came in many varieties of languages and explained America’s involvement with the war. As time went out, the Committee of Public Information began to push the war stronger and stronger through propaganda. This was not the approach that Creel preferred. Creel preferred the softer approach of persuasion by letting the statistics do the persuading. Soon the Committee of Public Information began to lose touch with its original goal. The Committee became submerged with patriotism with the population in its sight. As more time went on, their goal became less about persuading America and more about purifying America by any means. For many people, the war was not only over seas. Our own people were now bringing the war onto home soil. In June of 1917, the Espionage Act of June 1917 was passed. This act permitted Postmaster-General Burleson to censor United States mail at his

This paper will discuss John Stuart Mill’s argument about the freedom of expression of opinion, and how Mill justified that freedom. I will also discuss how strong his argument was and whether or not I agree with it. John Stuart Mill was a political economist, civil servant, and most importantly an English philosopher from the nineteenth century. Throughout his writing, John Stuart Mill touched on the issues of liberty, freedom and other human rights. In his philosophical work, On Liberty, he discussed the relationship between authority and liberty, as well as the importance of individuality in society. In chapter two of On Liberty, Mill examined the freedom of expression in more detail, examining arguments for and against his own.

In On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill was a strong believer of freedom of speech. He identifies the Harm principle to protect the freedom of thought and expression. He argues that people should not be silenced for expressing their opinion or how they feel based on their beliefs. He declares four vaguely arguments and makes several examples as to why freedom of speech is a very important aspect to society. In this paper, I argue that Mill is correct in declaring that we have the right to express our opinions as long as it does not bring harm to others. First, I will define how Mill uses the harm principle to declare his argument and the four distinct reasons for freedom of opinion and the expression of opinion. Secondly, I will declare my viewpoint based on why I agree with the harm principle as well as Mill’s argument following that we have a right to freedom of expression.