Question 3: Should freedom of speech be restricted in wartime?
Read the documents below to help you develop your opinion on this essential question regarding the success of the United States in conducting foreign wars.
Submit your comments below. For each question, every student should:
- Write a comment using evidence to back up your opinion (either by referencing the document or referencing specific facts discussed in class or in your readings)
- Ask a question
- Respond to someone else's comment or question
Background:
Under the Espionage and Sedition Acts, hundreds of labor union leaders and socialists were put in jail for opposing the war. The Supreme Court ruled that this was a fair restriction of the freedom of speech because of the "clear and present danger" this created for the U.S. war effort and for the U.S. military in particular.
Document 1: Sedition Act, 1918
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 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 ... shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both....
Document 2: Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the majority, Schenk v. United States, 1919
Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances a to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.
A conspiracy to circulate among men called and accepted for military service under the Selective Service Act of May 18, 1917, a circular tending to influence them to obstruct the draft, with the intent to effect that result, and followed by the sending of such circulars, is within the power of Congress to punish, and is punishable under the Espionage Act
Freedom of speech is a natural right and as such cannot be violated based on circumstances. If the public is not in great danger then should and will arise as the situation is relatively secure. If there is a great danger then the public will have no reason to criticize as it would not be in their interests to hurt the war effort. Furthermore, if criticism does arise in such times it will be ignored as the public as a whole will be in such a danger that the criticism will be next to meaningless.
ReplyDeleteI disagree because I believe otherwise. Although you may say that the public will have no reason to criticize for the best nation's interest, not everyone thinks alike. Therefore, you do not know at what extent people are willing to go to get their own message across.
DeleteI agree, one single comment will never have enough power to persuade an entire nation. However, if many people are stating their similar beliefs to the public, then the government must have made a terrible choice.
DeleteBut what if it was a choice that the United States didn't have an really have much of a choice to begin with? Wouldn't it be better to just silence that idea for a time being?
DeleteI agree. No matter a person's point of view, they should be able to express their feelings.
DeleteFreedom of speech should not be limited under any circumstances. If the government feels threatened by the words of the citizens then they should stop and ask themselves what it is they are doing wrong.
ReplyDeleteWhat if they already did and continued doing what they were doing?
DeleteFreedom of speech should be limited during wartime. The U.S. citizens should act patriotic and supportive towards the troops. Nothing that goes against it, should be said. This is because somethings can sometimes make the issue worse than what it already is. Instead of it being solved, it's only going to get more complicated. Thus, last a longer amount of time, which will only be worse for everybody.
ReplyDeleteWhat if the PEOPLE are actually right and the government officials made a mistake by going to war?
DeleteI agree because during time of war we have to be united as a country. If the people don't support their own country how are they going to come out victorious?
DeleteWon't not allowing people to express their feelings towards the war cause problems making the matters at hand worse? Or forcing government official to remove their focus from the war to the people fighting against not being allowed free speech?
DeleteFreedom of speech should never be restricted, not even during wartime. It is a right that every citizen has been born with. Therefore, it's unconstitutional to take it away from the people.
ReplyDeleteWhat if their "speech" is hurting the outcome of the war, as in lowering the moral of the soldiers?
DeleteIn the case that freedom of speech endangers the people to an extent, as it does during wartime. Would it be better to be harmed while maintaining rights or to temperately sacrifice a right in order to protect your nation as a whole?
DeleteNormally I would think that restricting freedom of speech is something that the US government should never do. In this case, however, I believe there is an exception. With all the immigrants and maybe even spies coming from other countries during the Great War to spread anti-war thoughts it was impossible for a US citizen not to be influenced by such thoughts. With this said, it is reasonable for the US to restrict freedom of speech in order to prevent his citizens from being brainwashed.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, after all the restriction should only be during the time of war, as it prevents any problems such as riots and protest that a country at war cannot be bother with.
DeleteAgreed, the US government is just being cautious with its citizens.
DeleteWould the Alien Act make that easier?
DeleteIt would be in the nations interest to silence particular individuals during wartime. if this means that the average citizen needs to watch what they say for some time then so be it, after all, "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"-JFK.
ReplyDeleteDuring times of war, a simple idea of disagreement can turn into a protest that just cannot be deal at the time, as it could potentially cost the outcome of the war for the nations to spend resources in stopping an outraged in the public. So, for this time period, I believe that the U.S silencing the public for this purpose was fair.
ReplyDeleteIt may be fair but is it constitutional?
DeleteI believe that limiting of speech in times of war is okay. Those who speak against the government could potentially band together and go against the US. The Act is just a precaution.
ReplyDeleteI disagree as people should be able to speak, rebellion is illegal but just speaking should not be.
DeletePeople should rebel within the government.
DeleteFreedom of speech should never be restricted during wartime because people should be able to express their opinions and feelings on anything they wish without being fined or sent to prison. It is the natural right of everyone human being to say what they want.
ReplyDeleteWhat negative effects can limiting freedom of speech have?
ReplyDeleteFreedom of speech shouldn't banned from the government because it is a natural right, cannot be violated based on problems within country. Espionage and Sedition Acts, shouldn't being passed by congress.
ReplyDelete