Pursuing Justice

In regards to the Abrams v. U.S. case, I would like to take the U.S. government to task for imposing the Sedition and Espionage Acts in the first place. I would also like to pose a question to the rest of you to get your take on the matter: Is not the nature of what it means to be an American to question and challenge government? Is not the rebel spirit indelibly attached to America’s identity?

 

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Abrams v. U.S., seems to be stifling the revolutionary nature of what is I believe to be America’s identity. Immigrants like Abrams and his cohorts came to this country because it was a “free” country, where people could speak their minds. The Declaration states “…That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it…that governments long established should not be changed for transient causes…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government…”.

 

Therefore, it is the right of every American to protest laws or government actions that the citizen deems immoral or destructive. It could be argued that WWI was a “transient cause” and that the Espionage and Sedition Acts were impulsive actions taken by the government in order to suit its own needs at the present time. Given that the American Revolution took place in large part because of revolutionary literature which was “…unlawfully and willfully, by utterance, writing, printing and publication, to urge, incite and advocate curtailment of production of things and products, to wit, ordnance and ammunition, necessary and essential to the prosecution of war.”, it seems to me to be highly hypocritical for any government to stifle the very sort of language which made itself possible.

 

---

Christopher P. Galvin
Social Studies Dept.
Marshfield High School

You raise a good point. It can certainly be argued that this country was founded on the premise that  people should be allowed to challenge government and that free speech should be afforded to all, regardless of how popular or unpopular an opinion is. However, I can understand, but dont necessarily condone, how a set of laws like the Sedition and Espionage Acts, get passed.  The legislature and the court have constantly struggled with this issue and they have dealt with the reality that perhaps, absolute freedom of speech could lead to detrimental results and even endanger lives. Holmes notes in his dissent that the test as to whether regulation of speech is appropriate should be whether or not there is a clear and present danger posed that would justify such a regulation. Having found none in Abrams, Holmes believed, and I tend to agree, that the decision was improper.

This conflict of balancing free speech with public safety dovetails into what I think is a potentially interesting lesson involving the Patriot Act.  Analyzing the finer points of this act alongside the Espionage Act would allow for connections between the past and the present.  Furthermore, you could set up a debate surrounding the constitutionaloty of the Patriot Act.  In a round-table discussion students could hash out senarios in which regulation of speech, in specific contexts, might be proper.  Hopefully you can find some use, or not, in these ideas:-)  I think I have just decided on two of the three primary source documents that I want to use in my curriculum project. 

 

---

Erin Eriksen
9th Grade World History
12th Grade Sociology
Natick High School

I would like to respond to the questions Chris Galvin asked in his post. He posed the questions “Is not the nature of what it means to be an American to question and challenge government? Is not the rebel spirit indelibly attached to America’s identity?” During the year when I teach the Alien and Sedition acts I challenge my students to analyze these two acts and answer similar questions.  Many of my students come to a similar conclusion as Chris has, but I push them to imagine what it would be like if the government loosened current restrictions/guidelines they placed on rebelling citizens. What would our country be like if we gave citizens more freedom to deal with laws they deem immoral?  What results would that bring on? Could it eventually create a state of panic and potential violence? Like Chris I agree with and enjoy the rights that have been rewarded to myself as an American. I take pride that I live in a country where I can protest against laws I deem immoral/destructive however in the same breath I appreciate the protection the government provides.  I like knowing that the government has passed some acts to ensure the safety of the majority, even though some individuals might have their freedom of speech infringed upon

---

Crystal Bartels
High School History
Wellesley High School

It certainly is the historical duty to challenge our government and even change it if (when ) it turns too powerful and/or corrupt. However it is an interesting line that gets drawn when it comes to the safety and security of other citizens and our country. To play devil's advocate the Abrams case had the potential (though it was downplayed) to create a riot. Whether it was a riot caused by strikes or from the reaction to the falling leaflets and thier content. Although the content of these pamplets were not taken seriouly, it would not take much to cause chaos.

Someone used the example of free speech ending when someone yells "fire" in a movie theater. The US in the late 1800's through the 1920's was much more volitile than today. After the 1960's there were very few riots (LA riots come to mind). But back during the Abrams days there seemed to be more "clear and present danger" of rebellion, violence, rioting and general anarchy.

 

Today's comparissons over curtailling civil rights for the greater safety comes into play most notably with the Patriot Act. Perhaps the most tangable is Guatanamo Bay- which whenever there is any court srcutinizing (as there was last week) there is always a prisoner found to be a killer of Americans (like this week with the perpetrater of the USS Cole attack was at Gitmo all along). Gitmo gets the names and the stories and much of the press compared to other provisions in the Patriot Act. You don't hear of any Americans being hauled off in a Terrorist Red Scare over a wiretapping; we hear of the wiretapping and library cards etc. but we don't get people getting the electric chair, or deported over it.

 

The exchange of liberty (freedom)  over protection (power)  has always been a great debate

Zach

---

Zachary Simmons

 Crystal: Thank you fopr your reply. The question that must be asked, however, is; Is the government protecting the rights of the majority? Or, are they merely protecting the established power as it is? Our government continues to infringe upon the civil/human rights of minorities under the guise that they are protecting the "majority". All it is is that the government is protecting itself and using the majority as a rationale for infringing upon the rights of those of a minority opinion. Therefore, according to what you have stated, the opinions and rights of a minority group do not matter when they conflict with the majority. I believe that this is somewhat contradictory. One cannot choose when and where to apply civil rights.

---

Christopher P. Galvin
Social Studies Dept.
Marshfield High School

So I actually got chosen for jury duty this year and it was in federal court and the case involved an old guy protesting a statue being erected in Salem.  He had a really big sign in protest and he wanted to make sure that his poster got seen so he jostled some people in the crowd to move his way up towards where the TV crews were located.  He supposedly bumped into an even more elderly woman and almost knocked her down.  The police arrest him for disturbing the peace and he accused them of violating his free speech.   Long-story made short-  We got into the diliberation room (as you all might or might not have expected, I was chosen as the forewoman because I was the teacher) we all went around to say our opinion and everyone in the room said that the plaintiff was being a jerk and the cops arrested him because of that, not because they didn't want him to protest. Everyone EXCEPT the only guy who was a first generation immigrant from the Azures.  He was firm in his opinion (in broken English) that Americans have the right to free speech and to challenge our government or any institution.  This guy held out for 2 whole days while the rest of the jurors went crazy trying to get him to agree.   Finally he came around and the verdict was in favor of the Salem police.  When I was leaving the court I told him how proud I was that I served on a jury with him and that he was brave to hold out against the rest of us and he said that he didn't move here and go through a grueling citizenship process just to throw around quick verdicts on the things that matter most, the freedom that our founding documents provide.

I guess I am mentioning this because I sort of get Crystal's point that I too am glad that the government can provide me with safety from other citizens who might wish to harm fellow citizens (or in the case I sat for, protect me from an 85 year old man with a 12 foot sign and a lot of shoving) but ultimately, I agree with Chris' statement (which doesn't really apply to the case that I sat for) and I am very struck by his point  as more information comes out on the gross infringment of rights that the Patriot Act has unleashed onto our citizens. 

Cheers
jen

---

Jen Martin
Brookline High School
History Department

An aspect of free speech cases that might generate some interesting classroom discussion is the development of the "Fighting Words" doctrine. These cases are engaging because they center around individuals with a variety of political orientations, involve symbolic as well as actual speech, and engage students in discourse about public safety and individual liberty, focusing on uncivil and provocative statements. Moreover, the Supreme Court justices have been developing this doctrine over the last 60 years of recent U.S. history which appeals to student interest in "relevance." Below is a URL that outlines some of the cases that I have used to explore this free speech doctrine.

http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/fightingwords/casesummaries.htm#terminiello

---

Geoff Tegnell
7th Grade Social Studies, Curriculum Coordinator, Adjunct Professor

Free Speech, as almost every other topic we have discussed to date, is something that has evolved in scope.  In Gordon Woods' The Radicalism of the American Revolution, he offers insight and a reminder of why the Federalist believed the Alien and Sedition Acts were acceptable. 

"While the Federalists clung to the traditional assumption that truth was constant and universal and capable of being discovered by enlightened and reasonable men, their Republican opponents argued that opinions about government and rulers were many and ediverse and the truth of such opinions could not be determined simply by judges and memebers of juries, no matter how educated and reasonable such men might be." (362)  While the American Revolution may not have begun as a social revolution it did change society.  Free speech was not seen by the Federalists to be all inclusive, but to the Republicans "opinions about politics, like opinions about other subjects, were no longer the monopoly of the educated and aristocratic few." (363) 

 

---

Cindy Crohan
10th Grade U.S. History
Introduction to Law grades 10-12
Natick High School