Freedom of Speech and War

This past week in class, we learned about the Progressive Era which brought the introduction of the Espionage Act and the use of the term "incitement." This law and concept were both used to suppress anti-war voices, and they continue to be used today, even though the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech. So how is the government able to silence these voices? 

The Espionage Act

Critical vintage war poster

The Espionage Act of 1917 was enacted on June 15 of that year soon after the U.S.. entered World War I. This act made it illegal to criticize the government's choices during the war, and it barred people from avoiding enlistment into the army or even being insubordinate. Immediately, First Amendment (F.A.) privileges were threatened and several people were thrown in jail for expressing their opinions and concerns about the war. One of the most notable Supreme Court cases which resulted from this was Schneck v. the United States. 

Schneck v. United States

Charles T. Schneck was the general secretary of the U.S. Socialist Party. He and his party were opposed to the draft. Using his F.A. right, Schneck started to circulate flyers expressing this opinion and urging others to resist the draft as well. Unsurprisingly, he was arrested for violating the Espionage Act and charged on three separate counts. 

A picture of Charles T. Schneck

Schneck disagreed with these charges and his counsel used the defense that the Espionage Act was unconstitutional and that it was wrong for Schneck to be arrested for exercising his F.A. right. However, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that under the Espionage Act it is constitutional for some F.A. rights to be restricted if they present as a "clear and present danger" and/or incite violence. Of course what is considered to be a "clear and present danger" is put to the judges ruling over each case, so this leaves little, if any, leeway for counterarguments to be made.

The Espionage Act was made in a time of war when the suppression of voices was easily justifiable, yet it remains in use today with different applications (such as the case with Edward Snowden) and at a decreased rate. Now, anti-war (and other opposing views) are usually suppressed in a different way. 

Anti-War Voices & Their Suppression

For decades there have been numerous journals and websites writing articles about the anti-war movement and other dissenting views. Some of these include the websites World Beyond War, ANTIWAR.com, and the International Peace Bureau. If you take the time to read through some of their articles, you'll realize that the points being made in them aren't mainstream. Yet, it's not as if the arguments being made are inherently wrong or based on false pretenses; it simply boils down to the fact that they aren't in favor of what the government is promoting. I believe this is key to why their ideas aren't be shared as much as others'. 

2007 anti-war march in opposition to the Iraq war; Washington D.C.

Overall, the American government has been in favor of war, but supposedly only on certain conditions. There has long been an imperialist idea that America needs to help the rest of the world achieve American-like "democracy" and/or "freedom." However, some politicians (who are in charge of waging war) don't think critically enough about all the impacts a war can have. Questions like whether or not a foreign country is even asking for democracy or America's help are overlooked, but that's why dissenting voices (like the International Peace Bureau) are important. 

The news we watch and hear has been proven to change the way we feel and even behave. When thinking about this, it isn't surprising that some people in power wouldn't want certain ideologies, events, and criticisms circulating through mainstream media. How many people would change their opinions if ANTIWAR.com was more popular than BBC News? I think this is the ultimate reason why some people aren't even aware of websites like the ones mentioned above; Americans (especially the younger generations) have been conditioned to accept war as a constant reality. It is true that war has been a consistent part of human history, but this doesn't mean that history needs to repeat itself.