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
they should because if they talk bad of are country then some will be hessitant to not join causing us to loose man and maybe lose the war
ReplyDeleteWhat if the bad talk on the country turns out to be true? Ideas about it will certainly cause for better change and thinking.
DeleteWhy do you think it should?
DeleteNO i don't think that freedom of speech should not be restriced when nations are at war. because it's freedom of speech and we have the right to saty what we think and want.
ReplyDeletebut what happens if your opinions betray your country? you will ruin your reputation among your people.
DeleteFreedom of speech should not be restricted because the government is basically controlling your beliefs on such predicaments and their way is the only way.
Deletewe need to the peoples support
ReplyDeleteyet why should some be allowed to cause harm with there words since they would be hurting are country
DeleteHell to the hell no, we'd be no better than our past monarchs who feared their loss of powers. Certainly hypocritical at this point in time to suddenly turn towards the monarch way of handling such agendas, and come on now, it's not like we're fighting wars to display moral up bringing.
ReplyDeleteif some decide to back talk there home they should be sentenced to trial since they are not willing to support are cause and back there country up
DeleteBack talk.
DeleteSure support a cause because your country said so, if they told you to shoot yourself would you do it? Or question and criticize it?
DeleteFreedom of speech should never be restricted under any circumstances because this would go against what we are fighting for and our principles "FREEDOM"
ReplyDeletebut still, aren't we supposed to have patriotism to our country and that means that we have to go through sacrifices in order to win over the conflict
Deletebut this sacrifice is more like the start of a dictator ship or a country that wants to have total control over their people. In other words try to get in their shoes
DeleteThe government should restrict the freedom of speech during wartime to prevent any more damage to their country. (document 1)
ReplyDeletebut they are taking away rights
Deletedenial of that right would cause a mass protest and resentment from the people. If anyone should decide it would be the people, since the government was founded on the basis of the quote: "government of the people, by the people, for the people."
DeleteI think they should because without the support of the nation's people, the war is likely to be lost
ReplyDeletebut by negotiating a freedom that the people had would probably lead to a revolution while the war is going on, and that would make us loose the war.
DeleteTrue I guess like Russia you mean?
Deleteyea =)
DeleteYes, because if they are in war with other nations and they start publishing mean comments about the U.S they will create an internal country too.
ReplyDeletei agree with you
DeleteDon't you think that our rights should be protect?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMight as well change the title of President to King then.
Deleteduring war times our patriotism should be stronger than our freedom
DeleteI believe that freedom of speech shouldn't be restricted during anytime because it is your right. I don't believe that wartime should restrict any of our right.
ReplyDeletewell what if we were to go to war with mexico now? not only will we have a foreign conflict going on but tensions will pass from social media to actual violence in U.S land, do you still think it shouldn't be restricted?
DeleteI agree whith you because its a basic righ
Deleteyes the government should be able to restrict freedom of speech to avoid internal division. For example, the reason conflicts started in the early United States was because Federalist Anglophiles openly protested against the War of 1812.
ReplyDeleteDidn't we separate from Great Britain because they infringed in our rights as citizens? Why would we follow their example and allow the government to do that?
DeleteYou don't want to demoralize your country to oppose the war effort and the soldiers who are fighting for YOUR country.
DeleteSo you want our rights to be taken away?
DeleteFreedom of Speech is one of the basic rights that the Founding Fathers were very much trying to protect with the Bill of Rights. So, denial of such a right would be nonsense and immoral since it has been there since the birth of the US.
ReplyDeleteFor those who argue that the government has the right to restrict freedom of speech, what kinds of speech do you think should be restricted? Who gets to decide what is and isn't allowed?
ReplyDeletelike the Vietnam war; once the word spread that the US soldiers were losing or doing horrible things, which wasn't necessarily true, our upper hand was lost
ReplyDeletebecause of those claims many where discouraged to join causing us to lose man power in a very close war
DeleteWell, do a quick Google search on the My Lai massacre - a lot of the reports of our soldiers doing horrible things were true. (Or research the effects of napalm or the bombing of Cambodia/Laos)
Deletefine but then my justification is below; i was using Vietnam just as an example of the power of the people
DeleteOf course, any opposition against the war and the war effort of the country must be restricted to avoid any political, economic, and social unrest from the people who oppose the war.
ReplyDeletei support freedom of speach enytime because thise people are risking their lives at war so they should have the right to speak, plus even if the took away it will not stop people from saying what they want that is on their minds, they will start to rebile and it will cause a even bigger problem then if we would just let the say what ever they want, if they rebil it would make us look bad and it will prevent people from wanting to join the US
ReplyDeleteQuestion is, does the government fear it's own people that much to institute this ideology? Do they fear we can do better? Or worse?
ReplyDeleteyes because they acknowledge popular sovereignty
DeleteThey don't fear their own people, only what the people could do with the country.
DeleteDo they fear for their people or for their power's loss?
Deletei think they should put a restriction but not as harsh as putting them in jail. During war it should be restricted because if people would publish saying dont do the draft because it bad. it would cause problems within the country.
ReplyDeleteI think that if they have just verification of the war, they will have the majority of the people's support and this wouldn't be a problem
ReplyDelete