1. When Worlds Collide Protecting National Security & the First Amendment Mark Cohen & Tiffany Middleton, American Bar Association Division for Public Education

2. www.ambar.org/publicedevents

3. Alien & Sedition Act Trials Alien & Sedition Act Trials 1798-1801 Sedition Act of 1798 punishes seditious actions or writing: To write, print, utter or publish, or cause it to be done, or assist in it, any false, scandalous, and malicious writing against the government of the United States, or either House of Congress, or the President, with intent to defame, or bring either into contempt or disrepute, or to excite against either the hatred of the people of the United States, or to stir up sedition, or to excite unlawful combinations against the government, or to resist it, or to aid or encourage hostile designs of foreign nations.

4. Ex parte Vallandigham 1863 “The court cannot shut its eyes to the grave fact that war exists, involving the most eminent public danger, and threatening the subversion in destruction of the constitution itself. In my judgment, when the life of the republic is in peril, he misstates his duty and obligation as a patriot who is not willing to concede to the constitution such a capacity of adaptation to circumstances as may be necessary to meet a great emergency, and save the nation from hopeless ruin. Self-preservation is a paramount law.” --U.S. District Court Judge Humphrey H. Leavitt denying Vallandigham’s petition for habeas relief

5. Schneck v. United States 1919 “Clear and present danger”

6. Espionage Act Crime to: convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; 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 when the United States is at war, cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States. 1917

7. Yates v. United States 14 officials of Communist Party USA Smith Act, which punished speech advocating overthrow of the government Officials had only been involved in passive activities, as opposed to active attempts to overthrow the government Supreme Court overturned the convictions, concluding that the First Amendment protected radical and reactionary speech, unless it posed a "clear and present danger." 1957

8. Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969 “our president, our congress, our Supreme Court continue to suppress the Caucasian race” Announced a “march on Washington Convicted of “advocating violence” and fined $1,000 Supreme Court overturned conviction, ruling that government cannot punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation “imminent lawless action”

9. Trend shift Inflammatory speech vs. sharing classified government information

10. Pentagon Papers 1972

11. 2000-2013

12. Wood v. Moss 2013 “in directing their displacement, the agents acted not to ensure the President’s safety, but to insulate the President from their message.” Anti-Bush protestors asked by Secret Service to move, while Pro-Bush group stayed First Amendment forbids police to prefer one group of speakers to another based not on an “objectively reasonable security rationale” but rather “solely to inhibit the expression of disfavored views”

13. Department of Homeland Securty v. MacLean 2015? Not a 1 st Amendment case, but a Whistleblower Act Case Implicates Inherent Conflict: Security vs. Public’s Right to Know Consequences of speaking out aren’t just threats of criminal prosecution

14. United States v. Edward Snowden