Free Speech Issue
Are laws limiting speech on issues such as the nation's war effort a constitutional infringement of free speech? If so, should people who pose no threat to the nation, be subjected to fines and imprisonment--for the crime of expressing their opinions?
History & Background
In 1917 Congress passed the Espionage act which forbade any behavior that would discourage the governments efforts in its war with Germany. The act provided for a $10,000 fine and imprisonment for 20 years was to be the punishment for interfering with the recruiting of troops or the disclosure of information dealing with national defense." It also became a crime to promote the success of U.S. enemies or attempt to cause disloyalty among the military and naval forces of the United States.
On August 22nd 1918, Abrams and four other defendants passed out some 5,000 printed circulars entitled Revolutionists Unite for Action in New York City. Among other things, the handbills said that workers and Russian immigrants should cease to assist the United States in the war. and that factory workers should stop producing bullets, bayonets, cannons, [that] murder not only Germans, but also our dearest, best, who are in Russia and are fighting for freedom.
Questions before the court.
- Was the Espionage act of 1917 in violation of the free speech clause of the constitution?
- Was there enough evidence to convict these men for violating the Espionage Act?
Holdings
The Supreme Court held that the Espionage Act was not an infringement of free speech and that Abrams and the others were guilty as charged.
The important thing to remember about this case is that no direct relationship had to be shown between speech and some undesired outcome. Even though Abrams and his friends had no means of discouraging the war effort, other than their leaflets, they were held in violation of the Espionage Act and sentenced to prison.
The Dissent
Justices Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes (shown left) issued a famous dissent. They felt that the government should only restrict and punish speech that produces or is intended to produce clear and imminent danger that it will bring about forthwith ... substantive evils. In this instance, none of the men had the means or method of bringing about a substantive evil. They further wrote The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out," he wrote. "That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution.
Today, the standard enunciated by Brandeis and Holmes is the law that we follow for prior restraint. However, In times of armed conflict, it may well be that the courts would uphold the earlier precedents of the court.
Free Speech Exceptions
For More Information
The Supreme Court held that the Espionage Act was not an infringement of free speech and that Abrams and the others were guilty as charged.
The important thing to remember about this case is that no direct relationship had to be shown between speech and some undesired outcome. Even though Abrams and his friends had no means of discouraging the war effort, other than their leaflets, they were held in violation of the Espionage Act and sentenced to prison.
The Dissent
Today, the standard enunciated by Brandeis and Holmes is the law that we follow for prior restraint. However, In times of armed conflict, it may well be that the courts would uphold the earlier precedents of the court.
Free Speech Exceptions
In times of war, or when there are heightened concerns about national security, the courts will allow allow laws and limitations on political speech--even when no imminent danger is at hand.Each time the United States enters a War or armed conflict (as they are called nowadays) congress is always tempted to pass a version of the Espionage Act. More recently, after 911 many citizens, both in and out of government, desired to criminalize speech critical of the war with Iraq--claiming that such speech gave "aid and comfort to our enemies." While laws such as the Espionage Act of 1917 are successful in the short term, the price of stifling free speech means that well deserved criticism or views opposing these armed conflicts will not be heard. Further, the government will often times hide information that it feels is potentially embarrassing to the current administration, rather than actually harmful to war efforts or troops, under the guise of national security. In present times, Bradley Manning is facing prosecution for violations of the Espionage Act for his actions of passing military information to Julian Assange and his website WikiLeaks. Thus far it has not been shown that Manning's action have given away secrets that are harmful to the middle east war efforts; rather, the information he passed has a great embarrassment potential for the US government. Even so, as a member of the US military, Bradley Manning will probably enjoy significantly less protection of speech than a private citizen since there is an expectation that soldiers will obey lawful orders.
For More Information
- Text of the Espionage act of 1917
- A Picture of Jacob Abrams and others involved in Abrams v. US
- The Courts and Politically Provocative Speech
No comments:
Post a Comment