Throughout American history, times of crisis called for the renouncement of civil liberties, predominantly freedom of speech, to promote the safety of the country overall. John Adams passed the Sedition Act in 1798 in the midst of the Quasi War between France and the US, which curtailed freedom of speech. During WWI, a descendent of this legislation reared its ugly, controversial head when President Wilson passed the Espionage Act of 1918, which also punished any traitorous rhetoric or criticism of the federal government with fines and possible incarceration. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Charles Schenck in 1919, thus deeming the Espionage Act Constitutional. The precedent set by President Adams held firm 120 years in the
…show more content…
In Schenck v. US, Charles Schenck was imprisoned for publicly denouncing the war effort. He appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that under the US Constitution, such harsh punishment for expressing discontentment in the government and with a pointless war was unlawful. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendants criticism of the war effort was not protected under the Constitution, because his rhetoric posed a “clear and present danger” to the recruitment and enlistment services of the US. Similarly, in Abrams v. US, the court deemed the curtailment of materials essential to the war effort with the intention of delaying the progression of said war effort, was unconstitutional. In essence, the Supreme Court, as a general rule of thumb, ruled in favor of the war effort, and loosely interpreted the constitution in order to reach their …show more content…
In 1798, John Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Acts during an episode of naval hostility, known as the Quasi War, between France and the US. This edict constricted the constitutional right of free speech in the US. Francophiles, should they openly criticise the president or his actions, would either be fined for their disloyalty or imprisoned. The Espionage Act under Wilson is identical to the Sedition Act under Adams. The Alien Act allowed the president to deport anyone he believed to be an imminent threat to the american community, a power which Wilson also utilized during
In Schenck v. US, Charles Schenck was imprisoned for publicly denouncing the war effort. He appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that under the US Constitution, such harsh punishment for expressing discontentment in the government and with a pointless war was unlawful. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendants criticism of the war effort was not protected under the Constitution, because his rhetoric posed a “clear and present danger” to the recruitment and enlistment services of the US. Similarly, in Abrams v. US, the court deemed the curtailment of materials essential to the war effort with the intention of delaying the progression of said war effort, was unconstitutional. In essence, the Supreme Court, as a general rule of thumb, ruled in favor of the war effort, and loosely interpreted the constitution in order to reach their …show more content…
In 1798, John Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Acts during an episode of naval hostility, known as the Quasi War, between France and the US. This edict constricted the constitutional right of free speech in the US. Francophiles, should they openly criticise the president or his actions, would either be fined for their disloyalty or imprisoned. The Espionage Act under Wilson is identical to the Sedition Act under Adams. The Alien Act allowed the president to deport anyone he believed to be an imminent threat to the american community, a power which Wilson also utilized during