Charles Schenck's Arguments Against The Espionage Act

Borders of the First Amendment are at the center of the legal debates about free speech and hate speech. While free speech is considered to be a basic right, as the Supreme Court has given the right to free speech. However, when such "free speech" crosses the line and becomes a threat, the courts have stepped in and punished the speaker. First Amendment does not protect free speech that has the intention of doing harm or damage. Many people believe that the First Amendment gives the people right to say whatever they want but it’s not true.

One argument made by Senator Robert M. La Follette was “I think all men recognize that in time of war the citizen must surrender some rights for the common good which he is entitled to enjoy in time of peace. But, sir, the right to control their own Government according to constitutional forms is not one of the rights that the citizens of this country are called upon to surrender in time of war.” He does not agree with taking away the right of free speech. There was a cartoon drawn that states “Swat the Fly but Use Common Sense.” This cartoon shows that we wanted to win the war, but we should not take away the important rights of the citizens. There was a Japanese citizen of the United States named Korematsu. He was born in the United States, but his parents were born in Japan.

The constitution clearly states that we have the freedom of speech. If the government did censor speech, so many problems would arise. Some problems may be, how limiting our speech is unconstitutional, wars could occur. The First Amendment doesn’t take sides. Censoring speech in America is a horrible idea.

The purpose of these laws was to forbid "spying and interfering with the draft but also "false statements" that might impede military success", as well as any ' 'statements intended to cast "contempt, scorn or disrepute" on the "form of government" or that advocated interference with the war effort" (Voices of Freedom 119). As a result, American citizens expressing their disapproval in any form regarding the war would be arrested and punished by these

King infers that some laws may look justified at a glance, but are really unjust when they’re put in context. He gives the example of his arresting for parading without a permit. King implied the issue isn’t how he broke the law of not having a permit to parade, the unjust happens when the law was used to maintain segregation and deny those citizens of their right of peaceful protest. The unjust happens when citizens are stripped of their natural- born, and constitutionally- written rights (King 928). King asserts that in no way is he advocating for defying laws, but he is for breaking unjust laws.

However, some people believe you shouldn’t be able to own a gun. Thanks to our Second Amendment, we, as citizens of the United States, have the right to defend ourselves. However, it’s difficult to predict what might happen if you didn’t own a gun in that scenario. The intruder could possibly have a firearm, there is nothing stopping them since they’re already disobeying the law by breaking and entering. Chances are that there will be a negative outcome, whether it’s death or simply the loss of property.

Flag protection, or making it a federal crime to deface the American flag, is the very definition of hypocrisy. It is by no means acceptable to deface the flag – in the same way it would be unacceptable to call other people names or insult religions – but freedom of speech must extend to the freedom to offend others, lest it no longer be freedom of speech, but only freedom to speak what the government wants to be spoken. This may start with a protection of the flag, but it will eventually result in a society of censorship. If the government is able to censor what is thought, spoken, or believed, then we are no better than countries who censor everything, and the experiment of America – that a society can be formed based on equal freedom for all – has failed.

The overwhelming answer to this would be absolutely not, lighting trashcans and cars on fire is illegal, so why is it not illegal to burn a flag during your “peaceful” protest? Justice William Brennan wrote the majority decision, with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun and Antonin Scalia concurring. ‘Johnson was convicted for engaging in expressive conduct. The State’s interest in preventing breaches of the peace does not support his conviction because Johnson’s conduct did not threaten to disturb the peace,’ said Brennan (A history of the flag

One may argue that guns should be completely outlawed, whilst another may argue the complete opposite -- making guns controversial. A common misconception about gun control is the means of doing so. The controlling of guns does not necessarily mean the taking away of guns from all American citizens, but the taking away of guns from unauthorized American citizens; otherwise known as gun regulation. Though it is stated in the second amendment that it is a right to “keep and bear arms,” the intentions at the time were that of a state facing tyranny. Hence, it was a sensible security to implement “well regulated militias” with the power to effectively resist.

Throughout the writing of “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau often referred back to his idea that he supported which was “That government is best which governs not at all.” (Thoreau) In the passage, Thoreau believed that the government does not have a conscience. He talked about not wanting to pay the government poll tax, which in result, caused him to be thrown into jail. A poll tax is just a tax on a person for existing, therefore, everyone had to pay the same amount regardless of the value of their possessions. This poll tax was for prosecuting war on Mexico, which Thoreau disagreed with, therefore, he did not pay it. In the passage, Thoreau used many different rhetorical devices and appeals, such as anaphora and repetition to emphasize the

She posed a “relatively serious” threat to the country and its’ citizens. Issue The issue and question at hand was whether the 1919 Criminal Syndicalism Act of California violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Also, the other question was that did the Criminal Syndicalism Act also violate the First Amendment. Rule of Law- A state can prohibit its citizens from knowingly being a part of or beginning an organization that promotes criminal syndicalism with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Analysis – The clear decision of the court was that they did not want anything that

So Marshall denied the petition and refused to issue the writ. In section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 it notes that writs can indeed be issued, but that particular section of the act was not consistent with the Constitution, making it invalid. I believe that John Marshall implemented this final decision because it was first of all highly appropriate, as well as it more or less was a good solution for both parties. Yes, Marbury deserved to have his commission but the lawsuit was not necessarily an appropriate way to go about receiving it. Marshall knew that if he were going to protect the power of the Supreme Court then he would have to declare the act

As acting Chief Justice John Marshall told Madison that what he had done was illegal, but since Marbury’s petition was out of jurisdiction Madison claimed it unconstitutional so the court could not order Madison to return the papers. During the Marbury vs Madison case many were able to identify unconstitutional issues regarding Marbury and his decisions.

It violates both 1st and 14th amendment. The 1st amendment forbids the government from taking “favor” respecting one religion over another, and the 14th amendment directs citizenship rights and equal protection of the law. However, Ted Cruz believes that Muslims should not be given rights of freedom, and free speech, but should be scrutinized when they are the potentially dangerous. Therefore shall be disciplined with” arbitrary interference” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 12) within their personal life. Innocent Muslims are singled out for not being guilty of terrorism.

Justifying the FLQ by enforcing the War Measures Act was not necessary because the basic rights of people were violated in the process, as it gave law enforcement the right to search, seize, and arrest anybody without sound reasoning, doing more harm than good. Yes, the FLQ was unpredictable, dangerous, and uncontrollable, but the situation did not needed to be handled the way it was, as it invaded the privacy of citizens, and took away their basic rights. The Front de Libération du Québec kidnapped two government officials, carried out many bombings, and caused incidents resulting in injuries or even death, showing terrorist-like characteristics, put lots of pressure on Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. He introduced the War Measures Act to