Why Protect Schenck From The Espionage Act Of 1917?

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.

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.

In addition to limiting freedom of speech through the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Smith Act, Congress continued on a witch-hunt to remove all dissenters in any way they could, often charging and prosecuting individuals based on circumstantial evidence. This period, often referred to as the Second Red Scare, followed World War II and came as the United States entered the Cold War, was a time of much paranoia. One of the many cases during this period that showed how little evidence was used against individuals to incriminate them was the case of Annie Lee Moss. According to a F.B.I informant, Ms. Moss was a “card carrying, dues paying” member of the Communist party and was brought to testify before McCarthy’s committee, for she was “alleged to have examined and correct secret, encoded oversee messages.” (The McCarthy Years)

“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,

1. Why does the author state that drafters of the Second Amendment did not do us a favor?

In different ways, one can argue whether that is true or not. He also said that the Espionage Act broke the First Amendment's promise ther “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech” which it stated in the Bill of Rights(Schenck v. United States). The government has the power to limit your right if it sees that you can cause a threat to the nation. Schenck was a potention threat to the nation, and therefor the safety of the country and for the people allowed for the government to limit his speech.

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

Starting in the 1960s, the Cold War began to create problems for the United States. The United States adopted the Domino Theory, which stated that if one country fell to Communism than other countries in the region would follow. American foreign policy was largely centered around this idea and once Northern and Southern Vietnam fell into conflict, the United States became fearful that Communism would spread throughout Asia. The United States needed to send troops into Vietnam, but many people opposed the war efforts and did not want to fight. This created a collective-action problem that the government needed to handle. Citizens wanted to have a military that would protect them and fight for their country, however many people rather free-ride and benefit from the military without directly contributing to it. Through the original draft system, white males from high income families were less likely to be drafted then men who came from minority backgrounds. This is because they took steps that would qualify themselves for a deferment and excused them from fighting in the war. The United States Government eventually had to enforce the draft more effectively and create a fair system. This new system, called the Draft Lottery, aimed to fix these problems. The change in conscription regulations serves as a collective-action problem in United States History because the original format that citizens were drafted by led the

On August 7th 1964 the United States Congress passed into law the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which, for all intents and purposes, officially brought the United States into the Vietnam War. Following this resolution, a draft was instated to increase the number of men that could be sent to war. Shortly after men started to be signed into conscription for the United States Military, a public outcry started over the use of a draft to increase military size. The draft was found to be unfair to American Citizens because certain groups of men were severely disadvantaged, the draft was illegal in many ways, and veteran’s future lives were harmed, among other reasons.

In the early 20th Century, the United States endured a time of political unrest. During World War I, fears of socialism and communism entered the psyche of the United States and culminated in the Red Scare. Hundreds of American citizens – particularly immigrants – suffered unprecedented arrests and deportations (Fariello 4). During this time, Charles Schenck, secretary of the Socialist Party of America, actively opposed the war. Due to Schenck’s efforts, the organization distributed thousands of leaflets criticizing conscription and encouraging readers to assert rights against the draft and intimidation (Schenck v. United States 1). In the 1919 case Schenck v. United States, the defendants were charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917 by causing and attempting to cause insubordination in U.S. military forces by distributing a document denouncing the draft in name of the 13th amendment (Schenck 1). When insurgency and fear continued, Congress amended the Espionage Act with the Sedition Act, which limited many more forms of speech (Fariello 14).

Throughout human history, war has permeated the lives of billions of people. From early conflicts such as conquests to control vast swaths of land by Alexander the Great and Cyrus the Great to modern, global wars such as the World Wars, the concept of war has been at the forefront of humanity’s mind for centuries. However, in recent years, opposition to war and lack of participation in the military has become a common theme in many countries, including the United States. To help alleviate the troubles caused by lack of participation, the United States instituted a law allowing for the conscription of its citizens. Conscription, which can also be referred to as a draft, is defined as the compulsory drafting of citizens into military service (What). The Draft has been utilized throughout US History in a couple of prominent wars; however, opposition has manifested against the Vietnam War and the draft, rightfully stemming from ethical opposition to the war and hatred for what the war and the draft stood for.

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.

Soon after the outbreak of war, the Espionage Act of 1917 was put into law. This was a federal law with intentions to restrain interference with any military operations or involuntary enlistment into the military. After this, the Federal Government held a draft for World War I. All male citizens within a specific age range were selected randomly to serve in the military during this war, and it was not optional, but forced. Charles Schenck was an associate of the Socialist party of America in Philadelphia, therefore he had disagreements with the Capitalist government. He was the general of this party, and believed that the war was caused by the rich only to benefit themselves, while poor lower class men were doing all of the suffering and hard work. When Schenck became aware of the government's intentions for recruiting military, he was furious. The government had seemed to have taken the natural born rights of man for themselves to use as they pleased.

At first forbade any attempt to interfere in military operations with the intention of supporting the enemies of the United States during the war , promote military insubordination , or interfere with military recruitment. In 1919 , the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the United States Schenck that the law violates freedom of expression of people convicted under his disposiciones.2 The constitutionality of the law, its relation to freedom of expression and the meaning of the language of the law have been challenged in court several times since