Can a nation restrict political speech for the interest of national security?

It's perfectly legal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater if the theater is actually on fire. It's only if it isn't on fire that you've broken the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odysseus

As long as you are not giving aid and comfort to the enemy, which is the other Constitutional restriction on conduct in wartime, then no.

---

Do speech and/or opinions count as aid and comfort to the enemy?

Are ideas that do not jive with the official government stance considered aiding the enemy?

Is it legitimate for the US government to arrest, imprison, deport, flag, or otherwise target people or their livelihoods because they were found guilty of, let's say, speaking communist propaganda?

If not communist propaganda how about, anti-war propaganda? or...anti-American President speech?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei

Is it legitimate for the US government to arrest, imprison, deport, flag, or otherwise target people or their livelihoods because they were found guilty of, let's say, speaking communist propaganda?

If not communist propaganda how about, anti-war propaganda? or...anti-American President speech?

---

How many people went to jail during the Bush administration for spouting anti-war rhetoric? Give me names. Because if nobody was locked up then, then that should answer your question.

Woodrow Wilson routinely & harshly suppressed dissent and resistance among citizens and the press.

At Wilson’s urging, a Sedition Act forbade Americans from criticizing their own government in a time of war. Citizens could not “utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the government or the military. The Postmaster General was given the authority to revoke the mailing privileges of those who disobeyed. About 75 periodicals were were shut down by the government in this way and many others were given warnings.

His Department of Justice arrested tens of thousands of individuals without just cause. One was not safe even within the walls of one’s own home to criticize the Wilson administration. A letter to federal attorneys and marshals said that citizens had nothing to fear as long as they “Obey the law; keep your mouth shut.” In fact, the Justice Department created the precursor to the Gestapo called the American Protective League. Its job was to spy on fellow citizens and turn in “seditious” persons or draft dodgers. In September of 1918 in NYC, the APL rounded up about 50,000 people. This doesn’t even include the infamous Palmer Raids (named after Wilson’s attorney general) that occurred after the war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColonialMarine0431

Woodrow Wilson routinely & harshly suppressed dissent and resistance among citizens and the press.

At Wilson’s urging, a Sedition Act forbade Americans from criticizing their own government in a time of war. Citizens could not “utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the government or the military. The Postmaster General was given the authority to revoke the mailing privileges of those who disobeyed. About 75 periodicals were were shut down by the government in this way and many others were given warnings.

His Department of Justice arrested tens of thousands of individuals without just cause. One was not safe even within the walls of one’s own home to criticize the Wilson administration. A letter to federal attorneys and marshals said that citizens had nothing to fear as long as they “Obey the law; keep your mouth shut.” In fact, the Justice Department created the precursor to the Gestapo called the American Protective League. Its job was to spy on fellow citizens and turn in “seditious” persons or draft dodgers. In September of 1918 in NYC, the APL rounded up about 50,000 people. This doesn’t even include the infamous Palmer Raids (named after Wilson’s attorney general) that occurred after the war.

---

fortunately the SCOTUS had ruled the Sedition Act unconstitutional a hundred years before

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei

For freedom-loving Americans, freedom of speech is one of the most treasured rights guaranteed to us.'

Obviously, there are limits to free speech (shouting Fire in a crowded theater, threatening to harm the president, ect.), but what about when the danger of the speech is political?


Some examples:


If we are in a war, should it be illegal to speak out against the war?

Should it be illegal to condemn our allies or America during peacetime or wartime? Should it be illegal to write a book that portrays America or our allies in a negative light?

If someone were to say (only say, not actually do anything mind you) "I will not participate in Obamacare and if they want to steal my tax money to punish me they can come get it themselves and if they put me in jail so be it because that's what I believe in" - should this person be arrested for speaking about doing something illegal (not complying with the health law or tax law)?

Suppose someone doesn't have any weapons or anything illegal or dangerous like that, but they talk a lot with their friends about a revolution and publically speak out against the president? Should they be arrested, executed, or deported for trying to undermine the United States Government?


Which of these examples should be illegal and prosecuting in the United States of America?

or if none of these, where do you draw the limits of free speech when it comes to issues of loyalty to the nation, and possible subversion or anti-American speech? At what point do they become traitors? At what point should dissent be considered treason?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei

You can try using your own words to explain what that amendment means to you. This is what arguments of constituionality are all about, whether specific acts or laws fall within the scope of what the specific amendment says. If there was "nothing ambigious" about it, we wouldn't have any need for the supreme court.

There's nothing in that amendment that says "except in cases of yelling fire in a crowded theater" but we all know that it's established that it doesn't apply there, as well as in other situations.

You know as well as I know that every law is ambiguous around the edges, and has exceptions. I think we can all agree that publically plotting to assissinate a public official is not preotected free speech as well. Clearly there are limits.

My question here is what do you consider the limits to be when the issue is patriotism and national security? Criticizing public policy, criticizing our allies in war, trying to convince people that a law or war is unjust, speaking about wanting to overthrow the government, stuff like that?

Do you think it's constitutional to arrest people for those things?

---

As the old saying goes, your right to swing your fists stops at the tip of my nose. Same goes with free speech: you have every right to say anything you wan up to the point at which it causes tangible, measurable harm. Saying "America is a horrible country and I wish that the North Koreans would take it over" does not cause tangible, measurable harm. It will cause flared tempers, for sure, but it does not cause harm. That speech is protected by the First Amendment. Threatening someone, though, does cause tangible harm. The police are required to investigate threats, and as such, threatening someone with bodily harm is considered a form of assault in most jurisdictions. You have every right to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theatre if the theatre is actually on fire because the truth is an absolute defense. Even if someone gets trampled trying to get out of the theatre because you yelled "FIRE" that is still protected speech.

However, leaking state secrets does do real and tangible harm. That's why it's a crime. You can say what you want about other people, but if you lie about it, if you commit slander/libel, then your speech is not protected.

Whether it's a time of war or not really isn't relevant here, because the same principles apply no matter what our nation's DEFCON status is.


To answer your overall question: Can a nation restrict political speech in the interest of national security? Sure. Happens all over the globe. Should a nation restrict political speech in the interest of national security? No. At least not the United States, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fettpett

fortunately the SCOTUS had ruled the Sedition Act unconstitutional a hundred years before

---

Wilson's Act was seperate from the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. His was the Sedition Act of 1918.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColonialMarine0431

Wilson's Act was seperate from the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. His was the Sedition Act of 1918.

---

nevermind, i'm dumb LOL :D


It NEVER should have been ruled Constitutional

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fettpett

i know...my point was that a version of it had already been ruled unconstitutional, his wouldn't have past the muster

---

It would'nt pass muster today but it was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Abrams v. United States in 1919 until Congress repealed the Sedition Act on December 13, 1920.

The gist of what I'm saying is that most Americans don't think that you can be throw in jail for speaking against the gubbment in war time, when in actuality it has already been done in American history.

Not to mention Lincoln suspending Habeas.