FREEDOM OF SPEECH A look at the First Amendment: Security vs. Liberty

Can anyone name the rights given to us by the 1st Amendment?

THE FIRST AMENDMENT “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.” 1A

v=blVrqO5Ot5A

FIRST AMENDMENT The first amendment contains no qualifiers. It is apparently an absolute. The Founding Fathers wished, in particular, to protect the expression of political speech. In a society where the government derives its power from the people, an informed and engaged citizenry is essential. (quote 11)

LIMITATIONS ON SPEECH There have been times in U.S. history when the federal government has limited freedom of speech. In wartime, particularly, the government has placed limits on what it has called “sedition” or speech that incites disloyalty or hatred of the government.(quote 5)

LIMITATIONS ON FREE SPEECH CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER: 1 st Amendment does not protect speech that “creates a clear and present danger that will bring about the evils that the government has the right to prevent” (Supreme Court 1919) When can free speech present a clear and present danger? To the government? To individuals?

FIGHTING WORDS OR WORDS LIKELY TO CAUSE A BREACH OF THE PEACE 1A does not protect words or expressions which are considered provocative by general consent. Ex. Hateful speech, “fighting words”—words by which their very utterance inflict injury” and by which there are no essential part of any exposition of ideas” Does the school have any rules like this that are limitations on free speech?

LIBEL AND SLANDER 1A does not protect speech that constitutes dishonesty intended to defame or damage the reputation of a person or an organization. Libel---written Slander---spoken Both false statements that are injurious to a person’s reputation.

Keira Knightley’s ______ Case The Daily Mail published accusations that Knightley had an eating disorder and had been responsible for the death of a young lady with anorexia. The actress went to court and was awarded several thousand dollars which she handed over to a charity.

Obscenity 1A does not protect speech that is obscene. 1973: Supreme Court decided 3 Q’s to consider obscene: 1. Does it appeal to lewd interests? 2. Does it depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way? 3. Does the work taken as a whole lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value? Do you, your parents, your friends all agree on what is obscene and what is not?

Conflict with other Legitimate Social or Governmental Interests 1A does not protect speech that conflicts with other compelling interests. For example—national security What are some examples of compelling interests? Who should decide when a compelling interest merits limiting free speech?

SEDITION ACT OF 1798 Passed by President John Adams(a Federalist) Purpose: to silence Republican critics of Adam’s administration and to quiet support for the French in their war with England. 24 editors, writers, and others were arrested, and 10 convicted under the Sedition Act. U.S. was able to remain out of the war b/w France and England. (quote 1) The law expired in (quote 10)

SEDITION ACT OF 1918 and ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917 *Targeted those who interfered with the draft as well as those individuals who publicly criticized the government including negative comments about the flag, military, or Constitution.(quote 15) *encouraged people to spy and report on those that may be “disloyal”. *More than 2000 people were prosecuted under the Sedition Act of 1918; though many were pardoned or had their sentences reduced. Espionage Act and Sedition Acts were repealed in 1921 (quote 22)

SEDITION ACT OF 1918 (amending the Espionage Act of 1917) SECTION 3. Whoever, 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, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements,... or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct... the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or... shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States... or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully... urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production... or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....

SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES (1919) Schenck, general secretary of the Socialist Party, arranged for the printing of 15,000 copies of a pamphlet opposing conscription and U.S. involvement in World War I. Some copies had been sent to men who were listed in the paper as being enlisted. Convicted of trying to obstruct the draft.

The court’s opinion “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic… The question in every case is whether 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. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in a time of peace are such hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any Constitutional right.” -Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

When does Holmes think the government can restrict free speech?

Schenck, con’t According to Oliver Wendell Holmes, the chief concern is whether the pamphlet can be protected under the circumstances. Said that 1A may protect this speech in ordinary times but when there is a “clear and present” danger the speech will cause harm. Example: shouting “fire” in a crowded restaurant.

OTHERS THAT WERE PROSECUTED Jacob Abrams-- wrote pamphlets denouncing war and criticized the decision to fight communist forces in Russia. Socialist Rose Pastor Stokes—sent a letter to Kansas City Star stating that “ no government which is for the profiteers, can also be for the people, I am for the people”—sentenced to 10 years. (later reversed) Eugene Debs—served jail time for telling followers to “resist militarism, wherever found”.