1 / 5

Limiting Speech in War Time: Sedition Act of 1918

Explore the Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918, their impact on speech during war, and the questions surrounding sedition laws in a democracy.

ashleywillis
Download Presentation

Limiting Speech in War Time: Sedition Act of 1918

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Limiting Speech in War Time • Espionage Act of 1917--enacted to prevent the activities of “German agents” • targets speech that conveys false reports for the benefit of the enemy, causes disobedience in the armed forces, or willfully obstructs recruiting • 2,000 prosecutions; over 1,000 convictions • Sedition Act of 1918 broadens possible crimes, basis for Abrams v. US

  2. Sedition and Incitement to Violence • Federal Control Efforts—Espionage Act of 1917, Sedition Act of 1918 • State Efforts—Criminal syndicalism laws, 33 states, illegal to advocate change by illegal means • Schenck v US (1919) Oliver Wendell Holmes articulates the clear and present danger test, 9-0 decision • Frohwerk and Debs cases (1919) also sustained, both cases 9-0

  3. Cracks in the façade • Abrams v. US (7-2, Holmes/Brandeis dissent) “present danger of immediate evil or an intent to bring it about…”, marketplace is key • Gitlow v. NY (7-2, H/B dissent) “Every idea is an incitement.” • Whitney v. CA (9-0, H/B concur) “…discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine…the remedy is more speech, not enforced silence…”

  4. Questions About Sedition • At what point should a speaker be responsible for the actions of his/her audience? Why punish inciters? • How do state laws against criminal solicitation avoid constitutional violations? • Should the state punish only successful incitements?

  5. More Questions about Sedition • What is the difference between a “clear and present danger” test and a “bad tendency” test ? • CPD-words used in such a circumstance as to create a clear and present danger to bring about the substantive evils Congress has a right to prevent • BT--the natural and intended effect • Is there any point at which sedition can be limited in a democracy?

More Related