Schenck v. United States (1919)
The Schenck court case of 1919 developed out of opposition to U.S. involvement in World War I (1914-1918). Antiwar sentiment in the United States was particularly strong among socialists, German Americans, and religious groups that traditionally supported antiviolence. In response to this outlook, Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917. This law provided heavy fines and jail terms for interfering with U.S. military operations or for causing or attempting to cause insubordination or disloyalty in the military. In addition, the act made it illegal to obstruct recruitment efforts of the U.S. armed forces.
Among the many Americans convicted of violating the Espionage Act was Charles Schenck, general secretary of the Socialist Party of the United States. In 1917 Schenck sent copies of a letter urging resistance to the military draft to 15,000 men who had been drafted but not yet inducted into the U.S. military. Schenck's letter claimed that the draft violated the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and prohibited involuntary servitude. Schenck argued that forced enrollment into the military was a form of involuntary servitude and therefore should be prohibited. The letters also claimed that businesses had conspired to lead the United States to war, against the interests of average Americans. Schenck advised readers to assert their individual rights by opposing the draft, but he did not directly promote violence or avoidance of the draft laws.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., delivered a judgment that established guidelines for evaluating the limits of free speech. In Schenck’s case, Court had to decide whether the First Amendment protected his words, even though it might have had the power to cause opposition to the draft. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." The Court concluded that because Schenck's speech was intended to create opposition to the draft, he was not protected by the First Amendment.
Holmes considered the context of Schenck's speech as well as its intent. In his opinion, he created a new legal test: the clear and present danger test; that was designed to identify when certain forms of speech were not protected by the First Amendment.
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
In the Tinker v. Des Moines case, the students’ first amendment right was violated. They were not able to express their opinions freely. The first Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances,” (Classifying Arguments in the Cas...
In the 1920’s a heightened suspicion of communist activities on domestic American land arose, the Red Scare. Benjamin Gitlow, a prominent member of the Socialist party, was arrested and convicted on charges of violating the New York Criminal Anarchy Law of 1902 during these drastic times. What was his violation? The publication and circulation of the Left-Wing Manifesto, a mere pamphlet, in the United States was his infringement. He appealed the decision on the basis that it violated his First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and press and it was passed on to the United States Supreme Court. The court ruled 7-2 in favor of Gitlow on the basis of Section 1 of the Fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Gitlow v. New York exemplifies the protection of civil right and liberties with judicial activism.
During the late nineteen forties, a new anti-Communistic chase was in full holler, this being the one of the most active Cold War fronts at home. Many panic-stricken citizens feared that Communist spies were undermining the government and treacherously misdirecting foreign policy. The attorney general planned a list of ninety supposedly disloyal organizations, none of which was given the right to prove its loyalty to the United States. The Loyalty Review Board investigated more than three million employees that caused a nation wide security conscious. Later, individual states began ferreting out Communist spies in their area. Now, Americans cannot continue to enjoy traditional freedoms in the face of a ruthless international conspiracy known as the Soviet Communism. In 1949, eleven accused Communists were brought before a New York jury for abusing the Smith Act of 1940, which prohibited conspiring to teach the violent overthrow of the government. The eleven Communist leaders were convicted and sentenced to prison.
The scare of not being united under a time of war was the cause of the Espionage and Sedition acts. These acts immediately caused the unfair conviction of Schenek and put him in prison. Although he was utilizing his freedom of speech, the unfair laws passed through the government by Woodrow Wilson, Congress, and the Supreme Court forbade him his civil liberties.
The thesis of Williams “The Ruling That Changed America” is that the Brown decision changed America for the better, but it wasn’t exactly accepted like it is today. Williams says “The real impact of the legal, political, and cultural eruption that changed America is not exactly what it first appeared to be.” (Williams 387) Furthermore, in the article, Williams validated the thesis by saying “Today, it is even hard to remember America before brown because the ruling completely changed the nation.”(Williams 389)
Korematsu v. United States (1944) actually began December 7, 1941 with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The attack on Pearl Harbor then began the conquering of Wake, Guam, Philippines, Malaya, Singapore, Dutch East Indies, New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Burma. With the attack on Pearl Harbor, racism, which was hardly unfamiliar, became an even greater problem. The Japanese Government's attacks on Americans including; torturing, raping, and murdering was an excuse for Americans aversion towards the Japanese. Public officials began to lock up the Japanese people simply for their own good, for protection against the hate crimes.
...o school. The dissenting opinion simply argued that freedom of speech is not to be used as a disturbance. Therefore, those students’ right to expression or speech was not violated because it interfered with the classroom’s learning. There is a time and place for everything, and freedom of speech should not be used everywhere.
Although this amendment gave people the right to express their opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as to how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech. According to Roger Rosenblatt “since freedom is the way people's minds were made to be”, freedom of speech is important to speak one's mind in a way that expresses his/her opinion, even if this opinion does not seem to convince others. In my opinion, without freedom of speech, the United States would have failed to be such a powerful country as it is today. . Although your opinions might disagree with others, you still have the right to voice them. For example, Roger Rosenblatt indicated that when a basketball player for the Denver Nuggets, was suspended from the league because of his religious conventions that stopped him from playing in the league.
The case of Marbury v. Madison centers on a case brought before the Supreme Court by William Marbury. Shortly after Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the election of 1800, Congress increased the number of circuit courts. Adams sought to fill these new vacancies with people who had Federalist backgrounds. To accomplish this, he used the powers granted under the Organic Act to issue appointments to 42 justices of the peace and 16 circuit court justices for the District of Columbia. Adams signed the appointments on his last day in office and they were subsequently sealed by Secretary of State John Marshall. However, many of the appointments were not delivered before Adams left office and Jefferson ordered the deliveries stopped when he took charge. Marbury was one of Adams’ appointees for justice of the peace. Marbury brought a case before the Supreme Court seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the new Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the appointment.
At the heart of the Red Scare was the conscription law of May 18, 1917, which was put during World War I in order for the armed forces to be able to conscript more Americans. This caused many problems in the recollection of soldiers for the war. For one to claim that status, one had to be a member of a "well-recognized" religious organization which forbade their members to participation in war. As a result of such unyielding legislation, 20,000 conscientious objectors were inducted into the armed forces. Out of these 20,000, 16,000 changed their minds when they reached military camps, 1300 went to non-combat units, 1200 gained furloughs to do farm work, and 100 of these, 450 went to prison. However, these numbers are small in comparison with the 170,000 draft dodgers and 2,810,296 men who were inducted into the armed forces.
Facts:A detective dressed in plain clothes and carried a concealed weapon approached the D from behind while another officer waited near the area. The police officer identified himself and asked if D would like to talk which he agreed to. The officer asked D which state he lived in. D didn’t specify a precise location. The officer asked whether D was carrying drugs in his travel bag which D denied to. When he denied, the other officer appeared about five feet away from D. The search failed to show signs of illegal evidence. THe police officer then asked if he was carrying on his person which he denied to. The officer asked if he can conduct a body search, D complied. The officer started from his ankles, up his leg, and passed over the crotch area. the officer felt small rock-like objects and placed D under arrest. at the station, officer unzipped Ds pants and found a plastic bag of cocaine like substances. D was
Should people be able to choose for themselves? Oliver Wendell Holmes said: Words can be weapons... the question in every case is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.8 The basic idea on the Freedom of Speech is counteract whatever one says or does. With the Nazi march in 1977, instead of protesting, have an anti-
In order to enlist more soldiers into the army the Espionage Act of 1917 was enacted into law. The law made it illegal for any individual to interfere in the enlistment process. It law was meet with major protests across majority of the US cities. Throughout the 20th century the law was enforced during all foreign wars, and this led to the draft resistance to Vietnam War. During World War I many opponents who contravened the Espionage Act were imprisoned. The growth of the Anarchist movement was suppressed with the prosecution of two of their members; Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti in 1920 (Zinn 1995, p. 367).
Cohen brought up two ideas of the amendment and how yes, it is supposedly meant to protect opinions and expression, but also how the Framers did not warrant for it to protect all forms of expression. Because of this we have laws against libel, slander, and obscenity, all of which were not there to begin with. While the author pointed out that there is obviously room for change, it still stands that the First Amendment was not put in place to protect people from being