The "Clear and Present Danger" Test
Sources:
The very First Amendment in our Bill of Rights mentions one's right to the freedom of speech. However, in America today there are definite limits to our "free speech." This modern outlook on what "freedom of speech" means were developed from a Supreme Court ruling during WWI that led to the concept of the "clear and present danger" test.
During America's involvement in the first World War, there was an act in place known as the Espionage Act. It was similar to the Sedition Act of 1798 where those who criticized the government were to be charged as criminals. The Espionage Act was passed to regulate free speech and "prohibited all false statements intending to interfere with the military forces of the country or to promote the success of the enemy." In 1918, another law was passed that forbade all disrespectful statements against the U.S. government, Constitution, flag, army uniforms, etc.
During America's involvement in the first World War, there was an act in place known as the Espionage Act. It was similar to the Sedition Act of 1798 where those who criticized the government were to be charged as criminals. The Espionage Act was passed to regulate free speech and "prohibited all false statements intending to interfere with the military forces of the country or to promote the success of the enemy." In 1918, another law was passed that forbade all disrespectful statements against the U.S. government, Constitution, flag, army uniforms, etc.
Conflict ensued when a man by the name of Charles Schenck violated this law. He was convicted of passing out "anti-draft" publications. He argued that he was using his right to the freedom of speech, and the case went to the Supreme Court. In Schenck v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, unanimous with the court, ruled to side with the government. It set the precedent that the First Amendment was not an absolute right, and there were times that the government has the right to restrict it. In order to justify this ruling though, Holmes said that there needed to be a test that the government must use before convicting someone of violating a speech law. The test regards whether or not "the words... are used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger." As a result, the special circumstance in Schenck's case was that the nation was at war. Holmes even admitted that in normal circumstances Schenck would have done nothing wrong. From that ruling forward, the American concept of "freedom of speech" was redefined. In certain times, freedom of speech can be limited, and those who violate it can charged if there is a "clear and present danger." This idea is still up to debate today in many legal issues regarding free speech. 
Sources:
http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/a-clear-and-present-danger.html
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/schenck.html
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Clear-and-present+danger+test
I like how you wrote in your post of a definite but not well-known fact regarding the rights of American citizens. Your argument is solid, and the analysis within the post indicates that you possess a clear and deep knowledge of this idea of the Schenck case and test determining if speech is harmful to another's well-being. It is important, however, that you may clear in the end of your post of whether the "Clear and present danger test" applies only to wartime challenges or to all Americans at all times regardless of conflict. That way, readers will be able to understand better of to what extent this test has transformed American history. To read more about the First Amendment and the Schenck v. United States, here is a very insightful and suggested article: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47
ReplyDelete