Justice Holmes' main argument in the Court's opinion in Schenck was based around the ideas that there were different laws in wartime and when there was peace. The idea of protecting freedom of speech was made during a time of peace, but some speech could be quite dangerous. He gives the example of a person in a theatre calling "Fire" and, since that causes panic, it is dangerous and not protected by the law. Justice Holmes' states that Schenck's leaflets were just as dangerous during wartime, so they were not protected as they might be during times of peace.
The Court was only slightly wrong in this ruling. The Court is right that there are certain actions relating to speech that are dangerous, like yelling "Fire" in a theatre. In a time of war, certain actions would be more dangerous than they would be during times of peace. However, to arrest people because they were expressing their beliefs is harsh, especially if there is no provable incidents where the leaflets actually hurt someone. So the Court was right in its beliefs that such expressions could be dangerous, but wrong to believe that they could actually punish a person for expressing there beliefs in a country where freedom of speech is an amendment.
2. Do you think some limits on the freedom of speech are necessary? Explain. (Use your own opinion and support it using information from the reading.)
Limits on freedom of speech could be beneficial, but trying to limit a right of citizens that is protected by an amendment would be impossible. Saying that someone who yells out "Fire" in a theatre and causing a panic that put people in danger is protected by the First Amendment sounds ridiculous. The could be carried over to more serious situations. If one person said something in a time of war that caused a panic that then hurt people it would nice to be able to say that they would not be protected. However, to punish one for something that they had "the freedom of speech" to say would be difficult. Measuring how influential one person's words are is very difficult. What would probably end up happening is that the party in charge would punish anyone who stated an opposing opinion to there own. Such a situation was reflected when many members of the Socialist Party in America were arrested as well as others who supported communism during World War II. In this case 2,000 people were arrested. If carried out for a longer period of time, there would only be one opinion left and a dictatorship could begin. Clearly, as beneficial as a limit of free speech might be and how it might protect people, it is too probable that the entire thing would just lead to one party controlling everything and persecuting other opinions.
3. List three examples of the "historical impact" of the Schenck decision.
The Schenck decision had many historical impacts and many of them were questions about free speech in the future.
- Freedom of speech of children in school was questioned (like during the Vietnam War)
- Questions about whether or not destroying the American flag should be legal
- It created questions about whether symbols were covered by freedom of speech (like armbands against the Vietnam War)
No comments:
Post a Comment