I bring up the dual issues of censorship of ideas and censorship of the press during wartime because it came up during the talk on the Espionage and Sedition Acts during the Great War. Under these acts, a person can be fined up to a max of $10 grand and given a 20 year sentence for interfering with the sale of war bonds or the draft, or saying anything profane, disloyal, or abusive about the government. Obviously, these laws violate the 1st Amendment.
During wartime, there is a feeling that certain ideas may be considered dangerous, traitorous, or even downright unpatriotic. Many have been accused of such things when criticizing their government during times of war, and our history book mentions some of them. Eugene V. Debs, a Socialist Party leader and candidate for the Presidency, was sentenced to ten years in prison and fined $10,000 for "speaking out against the war and the draft" (Danzer, et. al. 392). Anarchist Emma Goldman was convicted and sentenced for creating a No Conscription League and then was deported to Russia after two years in jail.
The legal reasoning backing these cases up was set in cases like Schenck v. U.S. (1919). Eminent justice Oliver Wendell Holmes jr. stated that "the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Justice Holmes went on comparing protecting free speech of the guy who yells "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theatre. Holmes implied that Mr. Schenck's wartime leaflets were that kind of clear and present danger and therefore needed to be censured. Is Justice Holmes correct when he compares the two? Or should there be freedom of expression even during times of war?
Then there's the case of the press. Should the press have access to everything as if there wasn't a war going on? What if the war had secret information? Should they publish or release the info to the public? How much censorship is too much? How much is too little?
"After a hard day's work diggin' up the sod, we're ready for chow."
Monday, December 11, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I understand why Justice Holmes compared the country protecting free speech to a man that yells "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theatre. Although I believe he exaturated this comparison, I understand what he meant and understand why he said this. When our country faces difficult conflicts, the public can be very confused and unsure what side they are on, for or against the war? A confused citizen can be swayed especially easily and feel obligated to take a side. Although the government wants the public to back the war up, the public may doubt their decision. The government wants the country to support the war for a variety of reasons. They need funding from the public (war bonds) and also know that the war will go smoother with the rest of the country behind it. Speakers against the war could prevent these things and slow down the war and its success.
Yet, at the same time I feel as though this goes against what America stands for. Enforcing these laws may have led people to question what our government actually stands for and further doubt their nation. America was in a tough position at this time and took drastic measures to make sure that the war went as smoothly as possible.
I feel that the press should have access to the war in order to update the public about the war. At the same time, I feel that this access should be to a certain extent. Like everything else, I believe that there should be limits to keep the press from going too far and possibly hurting the war. Anything that may hurt the outcome of the war should not be released to the public. For example, if the government knows exactly where Osama Bin Laden is, the press shouldn't be allowed to release this information until he is captured. If they were to release this information too early then Bin Laden could escape and hurt the countries war efforts.
I believe that there is a fine line when it comes to what should be released and what shouldn't. Anything that could hurt the outcome of the war shouldn't be released. Yet, anything that won't have a negative effect on the frontlines of the battle should be released.
Brian K
I do not think that the press should release information that could compromise the safety to America. The press shouldnt release information that could be helpful to enemies and expose our weaknesses. It is unpatriotic to do anything that could possibly hurt America. Censorship should only go as far as censoring media that could be damaging to people. I think people get too worked up about censoring some things because most of the time it is not harmful to people and people can chose whether to be exposed to the media. Censorship is a sensitive issue that can be very harmful.
Phil Streeter
I think that it is ok to phohibit the hinderance of the selling of war bonds and the draft but i do not think it is ok to censor what we say about the gov./president.
We have the right to free speech. That bascially sums it up. I think that any one does not have the right to phycically hinder the selling of war bonds. thay can voice their oponion but not phycically interfere. This is like any other buisness. You can't just kidnap/tresspass upon McDonalds employes b/c you think that they make people too fat now can you?
I think you should be able to say any thing but not physically interfere.
Andrew S.
I feel that the press should have access to everything that's going on because they are the public's eyes and ears. People want to know what's going on, as it almost always affects them in one way or another back home.
In the case of free speech, I feel that people should be able to express themselves in any way they please. It's these freedoms that define our country and set it apart from the rest, and little exceptions like during wartime go against what we as a nation stand for. Despite what people say, as long as no offensive action is taken, censorship shouldn't be a factor. There's the counterargument that voicing yourself too much can sway an argument and bring rise to offensive action, but that's just a theory. If it doesn't happen, free speech aren't bad.
Now if it's the case in the movie theatre and the guy screams "FIRE" during a movie, he can simply be escorted out or told not to say it again unless there IS a fire, not because of censorship, but beecause of basic theatre rules. He can scream fire all he wants outside, but during the movie, if there isn't really a fire, he should know not to be obnoxious.
But, that fine line between censorship and the First Amendment do make for a debateable topic.
Seth
I believe that freedom of speech is one of our most important liberties and should be protected even under these circumstances. If the American people are allowed to listen to the president and his administration's pro-war speeches, then the country should be equally allowed to listen to anti- war protests.
I also feel that the media should portray the war as it really is. The difference between the media’s coverage of the wars of past generations and the wars of today is our technological advances. The media used to glorify war... but is that what war is really like for the men and women fighting for our country? Since these soldiers are risking their lives to fight... shouldn't the world get to see what they've really gone through? Maybe the world will be a more peaceful place if everyone sees the "glory" or war.
Chase R.
i think that people have there own right to say what they want. Freedom of speech is very important and i think that they should be able to speak their mind, as long as it isnt hurting anyone. I dont think that the press should relase information though if it dosent need to be said. if its going to affect the outcome of the war they shouldnt say anything at all.
Nicole S.
I understand Jordans comparison and I think that we need to understand that telling Americans that we're under attack over the new would immediatly spread panic. Yes teh news should have access to events, but they should have limitation on what they can do with the information. I find that the news is to exajarant and picky, and focuses only on the bad details.
I understand why the government would limit free speech during war, but the people do have the right to know. Limiting the peoples knowledge, frightens then more than if they new everything. I think that there should be limitations set to releases, but information should be allowed to be released, for the better of the public.
Anna S.
I beleive that everyone should have the right of free speech. Unless it deals with threats then I think censorship should be applied. The right of free speech makes our country unique and different for others. I feel that we as the people need to voice our opinions if we stronly agree or disagree with the war.
In the case of Schenck vs. U.S. 1919, the punishment was too harsh. I understand that Schneck falsely yelled, "FIRE" in a full movie theatre which caused panic, but being sent to jail was the wrong approach. He should have been kicked out and never allowed back. Yes, it was a very stupid ide,but I don't think censorship should be given.
I think the press should have access to the war, but only under certain circumstances. If there is imformation that could make the war situation worse then the press shouldn't put it out for the whole world to see. I think the citizens should she the bad and good of the war, but not to a level of letting the world see it.
Michelle U.
In my opinion, people are entitled to the freedom of speech, no matter what they say. I think that everyone has thier own opinion and whether you agree or disagree to what is said, it's your own opinion and people can choose to do with it what they want. They can either accept the statement, whatever it may be, or you can disagree with it, but either way it is a statement put out for discussion, not for prosecution.
It is not right for the government to repremand and punish people becuase of their own opinions because america is about individuality and accepting other cultures. So if we can accept other cultures, then why can't we accept other people's opinions?
-Kelsey
I can see that the public would want to be informed and up to date on what is happening in the world and the United States for that matter. But some stuff should be better off not told and put into the press. But war, war is not convidential by any means. If theres a war going on its not going to be silent and troops arnt just going to meander out of the US not noticed. Its just not possible, someone is going to see or hear something. Which is where the press comes into play. we have to know what is going on in our country where all teh money is going that we spend, such as sales tax, and property taxes. I dont know wbout you but I wont pay taxes unless I know where my money is going to.
Or if our goverment is screwing up, or if they are succeeding I want to know, the public wants to know the country wants to know. Therefore the press should be clued in so the public is clued in.
Post a Comment