Chapter 3 Political Heresy: Sedition in the U.S.

1
Chapter 3 Political HeresySedition in the U.S.

• From 1917 to Present Day

2
Whats not in the Book

• What did the Supreme Court do September 8, 2003?
• Why is this so unique?
• When was the last time they did this?
• What Clinton-era figure is a primary player in
  this debate?
• When will the Supreme Court rule on this issue?

3
Chapter 3 in One Sentence

• Throughout the 20th century, Free Speech, most
  prominently, Political Free Speech, evolved
  through Federal and Supreme Court rulings though
  several restrictions still remain.

4
Bad Tendency vs. Clear and Present Danger

• Speech is evaluated by whether it appears to have
  the tendency to encourage action that is
  dangerous if it is allowed to continue, even if
  the action is not until some future, unspecified
  date.

• Speech should be controlled only if it proposes
  action felt to lead to obvious and immediate
  danger to society.

5
Court Cases that defined Free Speech in the 20th
Century
6
Political Heresy

• Threatening the life of the President
• Revealing, without authorization, the names of
  Intelligence agents
• Making antiwar statements while an elected
  official
• Advising youth against the draft
• Compelling public school students to salute the
  flag
• Preventing political heretics from speaking on
  State college campuses
• Criticizing public officials
• Incitement to other kinds of violence

7
Im Going to Kill BushThreatening the Life of
the President

• Knowingly and willfully threatening the life of
  the President
• Also includes the VP, Pres.-elect, VP-elect,
  Speaker of House, or anyone else in the line of
  succession
• Punishable by 1000 fine and/or imprisonment for
  up to 5 years.
• The guys who fired weapons at the White House a
  few years back fall in this category.

8
I Pledge of AllegianceCompelling Public School
Students to Salute the Flag

• First addressed in 1943, that the children in a
  WVA family of Jehovahs Witnesses did not have to
  pledge loyalty to the flag
• To believe that patriotism will not flourish if
  patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and
  spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to
  make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of
  our institutions to free minds.

9
Students, overthrow the government!Preventing
Political Heretics from Speaking on State College
Campuses

• Supreme Court has not defined this issue
• Lower courts have by citing other Supreme Court
  cases
• Ruled regulations of prior restraint against
  political heresy are unconstitutional
• Even asserted that university students should
  not be insulated from the ideas of extremists

10
Psst! I know this guyRevealing, without
Authorization, the Names of Intelligence
Operatives

• Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982
• Several agents were killed due to systematic and
  deliberate leaking of their identities
• To prosecute, must prove intent to subvert US
  intelligence activities
• Can get 15,000 fine and/or up to 3 years in jail
• Rules eased under Clinton, put burden on
  Intelligence to defend why names should not be
  made public. Bush ignores this change.

11
Hit Man, the BookIncitement to Others Types of
Violence

• Hit Man was a manual for committing a murder for
  hire, published by Paladin Press
• US Court of Appeals of the 4th Circuit ruled that
  due to the specificity of the language in the
  book (the killer followed directions very
  closely) that it was essentially aiding and
  abetting in the act of murder and had no First
  Amendment Protection.

12
Food for Thought

• What are Masons rules about who can speak on
  campus?
• What would happen if you circulated anti-war
  literature today?
• Did the changing cultural climate post-WWII
  influence First Amendment changes, or vice versa?
  (Civil Rights, Feminism, Vietnam)
• What should be the current test for limiting
  forms of political heresy? Should the CFRB be
  ruled a violation of Free Speech?

13
How the First Amendment Evolved from 1919

• Established Clear and Present Danger as guiding
  rule, instead of Bad Tendency (Brandenburg v
  Ohio, 1969), though CPD was first mentioned in
  Schenk v United States, 1919.
• Guilt by association carries a heavy burden of
  proof...just because you may be a member of an
  association does not make you accountable for its
  actions. (Brandenburg v Ohio, 1969 overturns
  Whitney v California, 1927)
• Advocating thoughts and ideas, seen as
  fundamentally different than advocating violent
  action. (Brandenburg v Ohio, 1969)
• State laws regarding Free Speech must meet
  Federal standards of the Constitution of the
  United States. (Gitlow v New York, 1925)