Do you know that notifying your fellow Americans of their constitutional rights was a Federal crime? Well it was during World War One (WWI). In the case Schenck v. the United States, schenck tried to remind his fellow Americans of their constitutional rights and also let them know that the draft was being used as a form of militarized slavery. This case contained men who his right was taken away after he tried to get the military draftees to fight against the draft. However Congress took his right of speech away when it was arrested and convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917. This was the time the WWI one had broken out, the government need men to fight. They were short staffed for that to work and they need man to fight this war so the military started selecting citizen randomly to draft. Schenck fought against this draft saying this in a way it was like slavery. When the United States entered WWI in 1917, Congress passed a law called the Espionage Act. The law stated that during wartime obstructing the draft and trying to make soldiers disloyal or disobedient were crimes against the United States (Schenck v. United States). Almost 2,000 people broke this law; they were accused of violating this law and were put on trial. Charles Schenck was one of them; he was against the war, and was the general secretary of the Socialist Party of America. He believed that the war had been caused by and would benefit only the rich, while causing suffering and death for the thousands of poor and working-class soldiers who would do the actual fighting in Europe. He mailed thousands of pamphlets to men who had been drafted into the armed forces. The government looked at this as a threat to the country and also to the people. These pa... ... middle of paper ... ...es everything easy, because you tend to know you limits to how for you can go without getting in trouble. It is really important to study you constitutions right and understand by doing so you might save yourself from doing jail-time. Works Cited Alonso, Karen. Schenck v. United States: restrictions on free speech. Springfield, NJ: Enslow Publishers, 1999. Print. "Schenck v. United States." Schenck v. United States. Chicago-kent College of law , n.d. Web. 6 Jan. 2014. "Schenck v. United States. Baer v. Same.." LII. Cornell University Law school, n.d. Web. 6 Jan. 2014. . Schenck v. United States (1919). The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/380/380reading/schenck pamphlet.html
The Harvard Law Review Association. (2005). The Debate over Foreign Law in Roper v. Simmons. Harvard Law Review , 119 (1), 103-108.
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).
Schenek v. United States was a trial in 1919 that reaffirmed the conviction of a man for circulating antidraft leaflets among members of the armed forces. This trial upheld the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which by many deemed unconstitutional. The Espionage Act of 1917 was a United States federal law, which made it a crime for a person to convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. The Sedition Act forbade Americans to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during war. The act also allowed the Postmaster General to deny mail delivery to dissenters of government policy during wartime. These two laws denied the freedom of speech that our sacred Bill of Rights was supposed to uphold. The antidraft flyers that Schenek passed out claimed to be freedom of speech so the government could not stop the circulation of Schenek’s pamphlets. However, by passing out antidraft laws, Schenek had “the intent to interfere with the operation of success of the armed forces of the United States.” By doing this, he broke the law. He was sentenced to six months in prison for breaking an unconstitutional law. The government was trying to reduce the freedom of speech during a time of war so that the nation would be united as one. The opposition of some feared Woodrow Wilson and his cabinet so they took action by reducing some freedoms and imprisoning many people unconstitutionally.
Brennan, William J. “Roth v. United States, Opinion of the Court.” Freedom of Speech in the United States. 24 June, 1957. Strata Publishing Inc. 12 Nov. 2005
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.
Years and wars later another case comes to the Supreme Court to test Freedom and Speech and the Clear and Present Danger test. David O’Brien is a Boston University student protesting the Vietnam War and its draft. O’Brien is convicted for burning his draft card in March 31, 1966. (McGoldrick 2006, 903). O’Brien and three others were charged with violating the Universal Military Training Service Act, which prohibits the destruction of a draft card. O’Brien was found guilty and was sentenced to federal prison for a period of two to five years. Boston’s First Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the court conviction on the grounds that the law prohibiting the destruction of draft cards violated the First Amendment. O’Brien’s act was interpreted as symbolic speech. The appellate court, then, ruled that while O’Brien’s free speech rights should be upheld, he could
SHELLEY v. KRAEMER. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 23 March 2014. .
The Conscription Act delivered the final straw in the long list of discrepancies, the catalyst that turned that small forest fire into a raging inferno of hate and fear. The white working class (mostly Irish immigrants) were infuriated, they couldn’t understand how they, white, hard-working voters were being punished. The government was forcing them to fight a war they didn’t support and the only way they could avoid it was to pay 300 dollars (a years wages for most), yet they would pay African Americans 1,000 dollars for volunteering. The new federal draft conditions also expanded to include a wider age range of men it would take. “The conscription law targeted men between the ages of 20 and 35, and all unmarried men up to age 45.” Adding to the already high tensions of laborers, since the enactment of the Emancipation Proclamation they ...
Geoffrey R. Stone in his book tries to give us a larger picture look at the history of the First Amendment during major periods of war. Stone states that “the United States has attempted to punish individuals for criticizing government officials or policies only during six episodes in our history.” Stone breaks down the six periods into two categories of rights suppression; Intense suppression periods which consist of militant agitation against France in 1798, World War I and the Cold War and less intense suppression which encompasses the Civil War, World War II, and the Vietnam War. This book mainly focuses on each of these periods.
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.
Schultz, David, and John R. Vile. The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America. 710-712. Gale Virtual Reference Library -. Gale Virtual Reference Library, n.d. Web.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
The Oyez Project at llT Chicago-Kent College of Law. (2013). Whren v. United States. Web. 1 June 2015.
Herndon, Peter N., comp. The Constitution, Censorship, and the Schools: Tennessee V. John Thomas Scopes. 1997. Yale University. 31 Mar. 2008 .