Schenck v. United States: A Federal Crime

This law prohibited any speech that interfered with the drafting of men into the armed forces. The media is forced to silence, due to the fear of any repercussions, from the government. Merely voicing an opinion in the media about any war is now so looked down upon that it takes away freedom from the media to reach all types of audiences.

America’s involvement in World War I not only impacted the war front but also the people left on the home front. When America entered World War I in 1917 the government enforced many measures on its citizens, many of which violated constitutional rights. The biggest measure inflicted on the American population was censorship. The formation of the Committee on Public Information (CPI) and the passing of the Espionage Act and Sedition Amendment stole American’s freedom of speech, created an anti-German sentiment, and led to deportation during the post-war Red Scare.

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.

There are many examples of categories of speech that are not protected from government restrictions such as obscenity, fighting words, and threats. The things said during his many speeches should not have been protected by the first amendment. The reason being is that Brandenburg’s words could have aided in violence just as rally’s before and after this one

During the First World War the United States instated a military draft. Schecnk mailed circulars, letters of advisement, to draftees, suggesting that the draft was a violation of their First Amendment rights. He proclaimed that the draft went against their Thirteenth Amendment rights- involuntary servitude and that war itself was motivated by capitalist greed. He was charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917, which made it a crime to “obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service”. Schecnk argued that the Espionage Act violated the First Amendment right, Free Speech Clause, “Abridging

The First Amendment did not protect speech was given strength orders but however it was not following directions, since, "when a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their stream of language production will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." In other words, the court held, the circumstances of wartime permit greater restrictions on free speech than would be allowable during peacetime.

The questions presented to the Supreme Court in Raich v. Gonzales (2005) are whether the Commerce Clause affords Congress the power to ban the growth, use, and sale of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act and whether it can enforce that act against ill people whose doctors have prescribed medical marijuana as a remedy. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice John Paul Stevens employed Justice Stephen Breyer’s strand of pragmatism to answer those questions. The premise of Breyer’s approach is that the Constitution enshrines values and principles, but it grants judges the flexibility to apply those principles to changing circumstances (Yale 11). Hence, pragmatist judges embrace constitutional

The Court ruled (9-0) and upheld Schenck’s conviction stating that the Espionage Act limited people’s speech especially during war time.

If this is hard to believe, the case of Eugene Debs demonstrates how it was done. Debs lectured fellow socialists on the detriments of the draft. In his speech he stated, “The poor, ignorant serfs had been taught to revere their masters; to believe that when their masters declared war upon another, it was their patriotic duty to fall upon one another… The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles… I would rather a thousand times be a free soul in jail than to be a sycophant and coward in the streets”. Debs did just that, this speech cost him ten years in prison. Many would say that he was only speaking his mind, and he should be able to do that, but the government had most power, and they got the final say. Charles Schenck had a similar case. While passing out pamphlets giving men reasons to not join the army, he was arrested and charged with violating the Espionage Act. Again, he was only trying to inform people of the disturbing side of the war.

Another prominent case is Schenck V. United States. During the First World War, Charles Schenck mailed pamphlets to draftees. The pamphlets made statements about how the war draft was atrocious and was motivated by the capitalist system. These pamphlets petitioned to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to disrupt the recruitment process. A large consideration took place on whether Schenck's actions, words, and expression should be protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment. (“SCHENCK v. UNITED STATES”) The decision held Schenck’s conviction in that it did not violate his First Amendment right to free speech.

The Sedition Act that was signed into law in 1794, clearly violated the first amendment. The Sedition Act was unconstitutional. Who should have freedom of speech? Freedom of speech should be applied to everyone no matter what color, race, gender, culture, or religion. Should it apply only to those who voice opinions most people agree with? No, every person can voice their own opinion. Or, should it be for everyone, even for those who hold opinions that most Americans hate? Yes, it should be for everyone and for anyone, because every human deserves the rights of the first

All the Laws but One: Civil Liberties in Wartime is a book by William H. Rehnquist, former Chief Justice of the United States of America. In his book, Justice Rehnquist presents the history of civil liberties during wartime in the United States during three wars: the Civil War, World War I, and World War II. This book takes us on an in depth journey of the United States of America’s government activities. Justice Rehnquist follows the presidencies of Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. As former Chief Justice, William H. Rehnquist is able to give readers an understanding to the thought process of government officials though his own commentary. A historical approach is taken as the author analyzes the Supreme Court’s

When America entered World War I in 1917 the U.S. Government enforced many measures on its citizens. Some of these measures violated constitutional rights. The biggest measure inflicted on the American population was censorship. The formation of the Committee on Public Information (CPI) and the passing of the Espionage Act and Sedition Amendment

Many citizens argued that the goal of the United States was not to make the world safe for democracy but to protect the investments of the wealthy. President Woodrow Wilson had little patience for such dissent. Shortly after the United States entered the war, Congress enacted the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. These acts gave postal officials the authority to ban newspapers for anti-war speech, and made speech that was degrading towards the U.S. a federal offense. The government prosecuted over 2,100 people under these acts. The administration’s intent was made clear in 1917 when Attorney General Thomas Watt Gregory, referring to war dissenters, stated: “May God have mercy on them, for they need expect none from an outraged people and an avenging government.” These acts were mercilessly abused by the government officials. While not as blatantly abusive as the Japanese Internment Act was, it still gave the government far too much power in determining the difference between harmful speech and a simple opinion. The government showed considerable regret just a few years after these acts were established. Between 1919 and 1923, the government released from prison every individual who had been convicted of sedition during the war. Over the next half-century, the Supreme Court overruled every one of its World War I decisions, holding in effect that

Many times in history the Supreme Court has been faced with deciding how to treat civil liberties during war time. This raises the question, what restrictions if any should the court allow during wartime. The court is faced with making the decision on civil liberties during wartime for security reasons, and to protect the rights of the individual. While some may say that the no exception stance may put our national security at risk during war time, No exception is the only stance that is constitutionally acceptable as proven through the analysis of the different stances by examining related cases, text, and the constitution.