John Mayer says, “Say what you need to say,” or don’t?

unknown-1

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Land of the free, home of the brave—the concluding statement of our National Anthem is also the core of our First Amendment. Summarized, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, press, religion, expression, petition, assembly, etc. But that is not to say it does not include its limitations. However, where can you draw the line in the sand and say this is where freedom stops, when you are guaranteed ultimate freedom to say and do what you please? Why do people say they can tell you no? But aren’t they inherently violating what people have fought for by trying to limit what you wish to say? Simply, there are certain pleasantries that must be followed when expressing ones First Amendment rights, such as recognizing the threat to public safety or respecting the ability of certain organizations, such as schools, to regulate and discipline what its students can or cannot say.

A landmark Supreme Court case that discussed the First Amendment and the issue of freedom of expression, specifically that of free speech was Schenck vs. United States. This case, which took place in 1919 after WWI focused on the discussion of free speech and if the government has the authority to regulate speech under certain circumstances. Charles Schenck the defendant in this case was charged with conspiracy to violate the espionage act by encouraging military insubordination or desertion during WWI. Schenck was protesting the war and was sending pamphlets and the like through the mail to men eligible for the draft. However, Schenck never encouraged violent action, but rather peaceful protest against the war effort. So why would the government feel threatened by peaceful action?

Schenck’s case was taken all the way to The Supreme Court where a unanimous decision sided with the U.S. over Schenck. Their reasoning was that Schenck’s publications presented a “clear and present danger.” They stated that all things uttered in public are subject to their own circumstances and in time of war the government can regulate what is published so as to not lower morale or generate an added threat.

So, can the government or another organization regulate what is said by its citizens during a time of war, or even at all? Are they not then violating the rights they are trying to protect? For me, I see the logic in restricting what is said on certain topics, such as a draft, during war. In a time of such great anxiety and fear, why add more stress? But how can you or anyone else decide where freedoms stop and start? You can’t. It’s never a clear distinction and I think that is what is most frustrating about law—everything is circumstantial.

Source for Court Case info:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47

 

John Mayer “Say what you need to say”

imagesunknown

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*
*