One century ago, on March 3, 1919, the Supreme Court was faced with the landmark case Schenck v. United States, marking for the first time the Court’s interpretation of the meaning of the First Amendment, which reserves citizens’ right to free speech.
This freedom of speech, however, was called into question when Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer, two socialists who opposed the draft during the first World War, began distributing leaflets urging draftees to oppose what they believed to be a program in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery and involuntary servitude.
Schenck and Baer were arrested and charged with conspiracy, citing the violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, which served to deter attempts made to disrupt the operations of military personnel. According to records held by Cornell University, when Schenck’s case made it to the Supreme Court in 1919, the Supreme Court ruled against Schenck and Baer in a landmark decision, holding that the exercise of the First Amendment in an attempt to prohibit the military in a time of war presented a “clear and present danger” to the United States.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in his Opinion of the Court famously wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
This sentiment has been widely used in present day politics. Free speech, and what this entails to an individual, is something that many have struggled with.
Does fake news violate the First Amendment? Where does one’s right to protest, gather or criticize government establishments end? One may argue that someone’s right to freely swing their fist ends at the tip of another person’s nose before it becomes criminal assault.
Such a story achieved relevance lately when Hayden Williams, a petitioner at UC Berkeley, was punched and verbally assaulted by another individual, neither of which are students at UC Berkeley. This story has made national headlines and even gotten the attention of President Donald Trump, who has vowed to sign an executive order requiring universities to “support free speech,” in the president’s own words during a press conference on Saturday, according to CNN.
The vague word choice of words presented by Trump further exacerbates the issue. How far does one’s freedom of speech extend? Democracy thrives when ideas are freely traded, shaped and transformed. However, free speech may also be used as a tool for hatred, violence and collusion. Citizens should be wary of any limits on their rights, and they should not be afraid to speak out against perceived injustice.
The Award-Winning Texas A&M University-Kingsville Student Publication