sedition after 1917

Question 1

Espionage Act (1917)

Answer 1

Passed with the primary purpose of preventing sabotage. It punished any speech with the intent of interrupting the US military, interfering with the draft, promote the success of the enemy. Over 2000 persecutions took place.

Question 2

Emma Goldman

Answer 2

Had an anarchist magazine, the day the act passed they raided the press and shut it down and took the list of subscribers.

Question 3

4 1919 Cases
Schenck v. US
Frohwerk v. US 
Debs v. US
Abrams v. US

Schaefer v. U.S. (1919)

Answer 3

Schenck v. US - Unanimous - Upholded the espionage act for passing out leaflets (according to tedford schenck should have been allowed to pass out his leaflet because it was an advocation for law change) They were still practicing under the bad tendency and not explaining the clear and present danger.

Frohwerk v. US - Published pro German articles. They upheld the espionage act and used the specific phrase “putting out a spark”

Debs v. US- He made an anti war speech, again the court unanimously upheld the espionage act.

-Chafee convinced Holmes that free speech as more important then protecting the US from bad tendency.

Abrams v. US- Holmes and Brandis dissent and decide that clear and present danger must be presented. (7/2)

Question 4

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Answer 4

An additional precedent, it applies the 1st amendment to the states and not just the federal.

Question 5

Whitney v. California (1927)

Answer 5

Whitney’s lawyers didn’t ague clear and present danger. In this case it was unanimous, homes and brandise wrote a consenting opinion saying they would have voted the other way had her lawyers went with clear and present danger standard.

Question 6

Fiske v. Kansas (1927)

Answer 6

The Syndicalism Act was called “an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of the police power of the State”. The law applied as it had was found to be a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The judgement of the State court was reversed and Fiske was found to be not in violation of any law.

Question 7

Sacco & Vanzetti

Answer 7

Italian anarchist, they were arrested for killings at a factory, but many people believe they were innocent and that they were convicted not for their actions but for their political standing.

Question 8

De Jonge v. Oregon (1937)

Answer 8

held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause applies to freedom of assembly. The Court found that Dirk De Jonge had the right to speak at a peaceful public meeting held by the Communist Party.

Question 9

House Un-American Activities Committee

Answer 9

It was originally created in 1938 to uncover citizens with Nazi ties within the United States. However, it has become better known for its role in investigating alleged disloyalty and subversive activities on the part of private citizens.

Question 10

Smith Act (1940)

Answer 10

(originally alien registration act) included provisions for freedoms of speech, it punished speech inciting disloyalty in armed forces ect.(this act was never really used during the war, it was not until after the war that it was being used to go after communists)

Question 11

McCarthy Era

Answer 11

Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s anti-communist crusade, dating from 1950 and heightened during his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Government Operations, rose to legendary ferocity. Although Congress censured the Wisconsin Republican in 1954, the legacy of fear and suspicion McCarthy helped create lived on through the 1970’s, as evidenced by FBI surveillance of the civil rights movement and Vietnam era anti-war demonstrations.

Question 12

Dennis v. U.S. (1951)

discussion v. indoctrination + advocacy

Answer 12

(1951): Dennis was a communist committed under the Smith Act and the supreme court set a president, they made a distinction between the discussion of revolution and the advocacy.

2 Rules of law for this case:
Advocacy: (indoctrination) = Overthrow
Discussion = Nothing

The bad tendency standard starts to come back when the case deals with Communism because the “gravity of the evil is so bad”

Question 13

Yates v. U.S. (1957)

“abstract doctrine” v. “unlawful action”

Answer 13

They created another category under advocacy
Advocacy of abstract doctrine v. Unlawful Action
This greatly limits the kinds of cases that can be included in the smith act. after this the smith act cases greatly dropped off. Stepping towards more freedom of speech

Question 14

Scales v. U.S. (1961)

Answer 14

(1961):Was convicted despite the fact he no longer supported communism, but he was later pardoned.

Question 15

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

Answer 15

He called for action, “revengence “ if politics stood in the way and suppressed white mans privilege
- The court said his speech was protected and set a new standard.

this case set the precedence for Incitement: free speech is protected unless the advocacy is directing to induce imminent lawless action and that it is likely to do so

1) Speech must be advocating lawless action
2) This advocacy is for IMMINENT lawless action.
3) The advocacy must be LIKELY to cause the illegal action.

Question 16

Hess v. Indiana (1973)

Answer 16

In Hess v. Indiana, the Supreme Court clarified the distinction between speech that incites “imminent disorder” and speech that promotes an unlawful action in the indefinite future.