1. Chapter 3 Political Heresy: Sedition in the U.S. From 1917 to Present Day

2. What’s not in the Book What did the Supreme Court do September 8, 2003? Why is this so unique? When was the last time they did this? What Clinton-era figure is a primary player in this debate? When will the Supreme Court rule on this issue?

3. Chapter 3 in One Sentence: Throughout the 20th century, Free Speech, most prominently, Political Free Speech, evolved through Federal and Supreme Court rulings; though several restrictions still remain.

4. Bad Tendency vs. Clear and Present Danger Speech is evaluated by whether it appears to have the tendency to encourage action that is dangerous if it is allowed to continue, even if the action is not until some future, unspecified date. Speech should be controlled only if it proposes action felt to lead to obvious and immediate danger to society.

5. Court Cases that defined Free Speech in the 20th Century

6. Political Heresy Threatening the life of the President Revealing, without authorization, the names of Intelligence agents *Making antiwar statements while an elected official *Advising youth against the draft Compelling public school students to salute the flag Preventing political heretics from speaking on State college campuses *Criticizing public officials Incitement to other kinds of violence

7. I’m Going to Kill Bush Threatening the Life of the President “Knowingly and willfully” threatening the life of the President Also includes the VP, Pres.-elect, VP-elect, Speaker of House, or anyone else in the line of succession Punishable by $1000 fine and/or imprisonment for up to 5 years. The guys who fired weapons at the White House a few years back fall in this category.

8. I Pledge of Allegiance… Compelling Public School Students to Salute the Flag First addressed in 1943, that the children in a WVA family of Jehovah’s Witnesses did not have to pledge loyalty to the flag “To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.”

9. Students, overthrow the government! Preventing Political Heretics from Speaking on State College Campuses Supreme Court has not defined this issue Lower courts have by citing other Supreme Court cases Ruled regulations of prior restraint against political heresy are unconstitutional Even asserted that “university students should not be insulated from the ideas of extremists”

10. Psst! I know this guy… Revealing, without Authorization, the Names of Intelligence Operatives Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 Several agents were killed due to systematic and deliberate leaking of their identities To prosecute, must prove intent to subvert US intelligence activities Can get $15,000 fine and/or up to 3 years in jail Rules eased under Clinton, put burden on Intelligence to defend why names should not be made public. Bush ignores this change.

11. Hit Man, the Book Incitement to Others Types of Violence Hit Man was a manual for committing a murder for hire, published by Paladin Press US Court of Appeals of the 4th Circuit ruled that due to the specificity of the language in the book (the killer followed directions very closely) that it was essentially aiding and abetting in the act of murder and had no First Amendment Protection.

12. Food for Thought What are Mason’s rules about who can speak on campus? What would happen if you circulated anti-war literature today? Did the changing cultural climate post-WWII influence First Amendment changes, or vice versa? (Civil Rights, Feminism, Vietnam) What should be the current test for limiting forms of political heresy? Should the CFRB be ruled a violation of Free Speech?

13. How the First Amendment Evolved from 1919 Established Clear and Present Danger as guiding rule, instead of Bad Tendency (Brandenburg v Ohio, 1969), though CPD was first mentioned in Schenk v United States, 1919. Guilt by association carries a heavy burden of proof...just because you may be a member of an association does not make you accountable for its actions. (Brandenburg v Ohio, 1969 overturns Whitney v California, 1927) Advocating thoughts and ideas, seen as fundamentally different than advocating violent action. (Brandenburg v Ohio, 1969) State laws regarding Free Speech must meet Federal standards of the Constitution of the United States. (Gitlow v New York, 1925)