Limiting Speech in War Time z Espionage Act
- Slides: 4
Limiting Speech in War Time z. Espionage Act of 1917 --enacted to prevent the activities of “German agents” ztargets speech that conveys false reports for the benefit of the enemy, causes disobedience in the armed forces, or willfully obstructs recruiting z 2, 000 prosecutions; over 1, 000 convictions z. Sedition Act of 1918 broadens possible crimes, basis for Abrams v. US
Sedition continued z. Cracks in the façade: y. Abrams v. US (7 -2, Holmes/Brandeis dissent) “present danger of immediate evil or an intent to bring it about…”, marketplace is key y. Gitlow v. NY (7 -2, H/B dissent) “Every idea is an incitement. ” y. 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…”
Questions About Sedition z. At what point should a speaker be responsible for the actions of his/her audience? Why punish inciters? z. How do state laws against criminal solicitation avoid constitutional violations? z. Should the state punish only successful incitements?
More Questions about Sedition z. What is the difference between a “clear and present danger” test and a “bad tendency” test ? y. 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 y. BT--the natural and intended effect z. Is there any point at which sedition can be limited in a democracy?
