crime when the United States is at war shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies and whoever when the United States is at ID: 573166
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Espionage Act (1917)" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1Slide2Slide3Slide4Slide5Slide6Slide7Slide8
Espionage Act (1917)
crime “when
the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies and whoever when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or of the United
States.”
Any mailing
that violated the above provision of the act was illegal, and it also banned any mailings advocating or urging Treason, insurrection, or forcible resistance to any law of the United
States.
U
nlawful
for any person in time of war to publish any information that the president, in his judgment, declared to be
“of
such character that it is or might be useful to the enemy
.”Slide9
Sedition Act (1918)
SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . .
shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States
. . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both.... Slide10Slide11
Schenck
v. United States
(1919)
The
most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in
falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a
panic
…
The
question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to
create a clear and present danger
that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to
prevent.Slide12Slide13Slide14Slide15
When the United States is at war, the Postmaster General may, upon evidence...that any person...is using the mails in violation...of this Act, instruct the postmaster at any post office at which mail is received addressed to such person . . . to return to the postmaster at the office at which they were originally mailed all letters or other matter so addressed.Slide16Slide17Slide18Slide19Slide20
Meyer v. Nebraska
(1923
)
The challenged statute forbids the teaching in school of any subject except in
English.
. . Evidently the legislature has attempted materially to interfere with the calling of modern language teachers, with the opportunities of pupils to acquire knowledge, and with the power of parents to control the education of their own.
It is said the purpose of the legislation was to promote civic development by inhibiting training and education of the immature in foreign tongues and ideals before they could learn English and acquire American ideals, and "that the English language should be and become the mother tongue of all children reared in this State." It is also affirmed that the foreign born population is very large, that certain communities commonly use foreign words, follow foreign leaders, move in a foreign atmosphere, and that the children are thereby hindered from becoming citizens of the most useful type, and the public safety is imperiled.
That the State may do much, go very far, indeed, in order to improve the quality of its citizens, physically, mentally and morally, is clear; but the individual has certain fundamental rights which must be respected.
The protection of the Constitution extends to all, to those who speak other languages as well as to those born with English on the tongue
.Slide21Slide22Slide23Slide24Slide25Slide26
Article X
The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League.
In the case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.Slide27
ARTICLE 11
Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the Members of the League or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole League, and the League shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations. In case any such emergency should arise the Secretary General shall on the request of any Member of the League forthwith summon a meeting of the Council.
It is also declared to be the friendly right of each Member of the League to bring to the attention of the Assembly or of the Council any circumstance whatever affecting international relations which threatens to disturb international peace or the good understanding between nations upon which peace depends.Slide28Slide29Slide30Slide31Slide32Slide33Slide34Slide35Slide36Slide37Slide38
Gitlow
v. New York
(1925
)
For present purposes, we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress are among the fundamental personal rights and "liberties" protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States . . .
That a State in the exercise of its police power may punish those who abuse this freedom by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to corrupt public morals, incite to crime, or disturb the public peace, is not open to question
. . .
And, for yet more imperative reasons, a State may punish utterances endangering the foundations of organized government and threatening its overthrow by unlawful means. These imperil its own existence as a constitutional State. Slide39
NAACP: “Blots of Shame”Slide40
Dyer Anti-Lynching Act (1922)
AN ACT To assure to persons within the jurisdiction of every State the equal protection of the laws, and to punish the crime of lynching.
SEC. 3. That any State or municipal officer charged with the duty or who possesses the power or authority as such officer to protect the life of any person that may be put to death by any mob or riotous assemblage, or who has any such person in his charge as a prisoner, who fails, neglects, or refuses to make all reasonable efforts to prevent such person from being so put to death, or any State or municipal officer charged with the duty of apprehending or prosecuting any person participating in such mob or riotous assemblage who fails, neglects, or refuses to make all reasonable efforts to perform his duty in apprehending or prosecuting to final judgment under the laws of such State all persons so participating except such, if any, as are to have been held to answer for such participation in any district court of the United States, as herein provided, shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment not exceeding five years or by a fine of not exceeding $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.Slide41
AN ACT prohibiting the teaching of the Evolution Theory in all the Universities,
Normals
and all other public schools of Tennessee, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, and to provide penalties for the violations thereof.
Section 1.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the
State of Tennessee
, That it
shall be unlawful for any teacher
in any of the Universities,
Normals
and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State,
to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.
Section 2.
Be it further enacted
, That any teacher found guilty of the violation of this Act, Shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be fined not less than One Hundred $ (100.00) Dollars nor more than Five Hundred ($ 500.00) Dollars for each offense.Slide42Slide43Slide44Slide45Slide46Slide47Slide48Slide49Slide50Slide51Slide52Slide53
Bailey v. Drexel Furniture
(1922)
The good sought in unconstitutional legislation is an insidious feature,
because it leads citizens and legislators of good purpose to promote it, without thought of the serious breach it will make in the ark of our covenant, or the harm which will come from breaking down recognized standards. In the maintenance of local self-government, on the one hand, and the national power, on the other, our country has been able to endure and prosper for near a century and a
half…
The difference between a tax and a penalty is sometimes difficult to define, and yet the consequences of the distinction in the required method of their collection often are important
.Slide54
Adkins v Children’s Hospital
(1923
)
There is, of course, no such thing as absolute freedom of contract. It is subject to a great variety of restraints. But freedom of contract is, nevertheless, the general rule, and restraint the exception, and the exercise of legislative authority to abridge it can be justified only by the existence of exceptional circumstances . . .
The standard furnished by the statute for the guidance of the board is so vague as to be impossible of practical application with any reasonable degree of accuracy. What is sufficient to supply the necessary cost of living for a woman worker and maintain her in good health and protect her morals is obviously not a precise or unvarying sum -- not even approximately so . . .
. . . There are limits to the power, and when these have been passed, it becomes the plain duty of the courts in the proper exercise of their authority to so declare.
To sustain the individual freedom of action contemplated by the Constitution is not to strike down the common good, but to exalt it, for surely the good of society as a whole cannot be better served than by the preservation against arbitrary restraint of the liberties of its constituent members
. Slide55Slide56Slide57
Bluefield Water Works v Public Service Commission
(1923
)
Rates which are not sufficient to yield a reasonable return on the value of the property used at the time it is being used to render the service are unjust, unreasonable and confiscatory, and their enforcement deprives the public utility company of its property in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
. . .
Investors take into account the result of past operations, especially in recent years, when determining the terms upon which they will invest in such an undertaking. Low, uncertain, or irregular income makes for low prices for the securities of the utility and higher rates of interest to be demanded by investors. The fact that the company may not insist as a matter of constitutional right that past losses be made up by rates to be applied in the present and future tends to weaken credit, and the fact that the utility is protected against being compelled to serve for confiscatory rates tends to support it. Slide58Slide59Slide60Slide61Slide62