Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 46
  1. #21  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    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.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    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 Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    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.
    Last edited by NJCardFan; 03-31-2011 at 07:51 PM.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    In Florda. Out smacking around Useful Idiots
    Posts
    428
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,757
    Quote Originally Posted by ColonialMarine0431 View Post
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,800
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    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 View Post
    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.
    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    In Florda. Out smacking around Useful Idiots
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by fettpett View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,757
    Quote Originally Posted by ColonialMarine0431 View Post
    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
    Last edited by fettpett; 03-31-2011 at 08:19 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    In Florda. Out smacking around Useful Idiots
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by fettpett View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •