1. What was Justice Holmes’ main argument in the Court’s opinion in Schenck? Do you agree with the Court’s opinion?
Holmes’ main argument was that free speech does not protect things that endanger America. He uses the analogy of shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. He says that what Shenck said would not necessarily have endangered America had they not been at war, so he upheld the conviction. I disagree with this ruling. I think if Holmes will admit that the pamphlet would be protected by free speech if there were no war, it should be protected at any time. I believe this was an example of exploitation of the Sedition Act by Justice Holmes in order to keep public opinion for the war.
2. Do you think some limits on the freedom of speech are necessary? Explain. (Use your own opinion and support it using information from the reading.)
Yes, I think some limits on freedom of speech should exist, mainly for things that are slanderous and untruthful. The burning of the American flag in 1989 that was protected by freedom of speech was a man expressing his opinion, albeit in a very exaggerated way, hence it was protected. Publishing something about Reagan having an affair to try and ruin his reputation should not be protected, as it is specifically designed to not be true. The limits on freedom of speech should be few, but they should be there. For the most part we should be able to express our opinions openly, as long as they don’t infringe on other peoples’ rights.
3. List three examples of the "historical impact" of the Schenck decision.
1.) At the peak of the cold war, Americans were persecuted for saying anything in support of Communism.
Holmes’ main argument was that free speech does not protect things that endanger America. He uses the analogy of shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. He says that what Shenck said would not necessarily have endangered America had they not been at war, so he upheld the conviction. I disagree with this ruling. I think if Holmes will admit that the pamphlet would be protected by free speech if there were no war, it should be protected at any time. I believe this was an example of exploitation of the Sedition Act by Justice Holmes in order to keep public opinion for the war.
2. Do you think some limits on the freedom of speech are necessary? Explain. (Use your own opinion and support it using information from the reading.)
Yes, I think some limits on freedom of speech should exist, mainly for things that are slanderous and untruthful. The burning of the American flag in 1989 that was protected by freedom of speech was a man expressing his opinion, albeit in a very exaggerated way, hence it was protected. Publishing something about Reagan having an affair to try and ruin his reputation should not be protected, as it is specifically designed to not be true. The limits on freedom of speech should be few, but they should be there. For the most part we should be able to express our opinions openly, as long as they don’t infringe on other peoples’ rights.
3. List three examples of the "historical impact" of the Schenck decision.
1.) At the peak of the cold war, Americans were persecuted for saying anything in support of Communism.
2.) In the case Tinker v. Des Moines School District, the Supreme Court supported students’ choice to wear black bands in protest of the Vietnam War.
3.) In Texas v. Johnson, a close decision, it was ruled that burning of the flag is legal under freedom of speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment