The Balance of Freedom of Expression and Sedition - Essay Example

The Balance of Freedom of Expression and Sedition Truth has always been a mystery since the olden times. It is something that can “set one free”, or forever enslave the truth bearer. Being able to stand for the truth is a mark of courage, while holding on to a secret that may be a key to another’s freedom held in abeyance may be an unbearable cause of suffering. That is why it is ironic how people covet it when they are uncertain of circumstances, or hide it when they are fearful that it may hurt them. Many people have lived and died expressing what they believed was truth. Such freedom of expression may have been enjoyed and curtailed over history. If the truth impinged on sensitive issues such as exposing ugly truths about the government and its actions against its people, then there are ways to curtail it. The First Amendment to the first US Constitution, which was known as the Articles of Confederation, included freedom of expression in the bill of rights. Such freedom has been interpreted in a multitude of ways. Some have used it to their advantage and interpreted it as the right to discuss the government, the right to criticize the government, the right to oppose the government, the right to advocate the change of the government, etc., which puts the government in a bad light and induce fear and doubt in the citizenry. Thus, government efforts to control such acts prompted the creation of more laws to protect its own image and prevent mass hysteria. During the war, the Espionage Act was enacted into law on June 15, 1917. Title I, section 3 limited the freedom of expression during wartime by declaring it unlawful to “make false statements that interfered with the military; to attempt to cause "insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty" in the military; or to obstruct the military recruiting or enlistment services” (Washburn, 1998, p. 206). Relevant to the press in this act is Title XII which gives permission to the postmaster general to declare unmailable any printed material which is deemed violating the law. One way to curb press freedom was the rule for newspapers and periodicals to appear at regularly stated intervals to qualify for a second-class mailing permit, which is generally cheaper. If the postmaster general withheld just one issue from the mail, a second-class permit could be revoked indefinitely, resulting in the publication to come out irregularly. Revocation of second-class permit makes it unprofitable to publish because the alternatives of first-class and third class postal rates were much higher. An even stricter measure was made with the creation of the most severe legal limitation in US history on freedom of expression and the press which is the Sedition Act of May 16, 1918. It amended the Espionage Act by adding nine new offenses which include “speaking, writing, or publishing any "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about topics ranging from the government to the flag to the armed forces. Also prohibited were writings or statements intended to result in "contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute" of the government, the Constitution, the flag, and even the armed forces' uniforms. Penalties for those convicted were identical to those under the Espionage Act” (Washburn, 1998, p. 206). Approximately 2,000 people were prosecuted under these espionage and sedition laws, and nearly 900 were convicted. Persons who found themselves in the government’s dragnet were usually aliens, radicals, publishers of foreign-language publications and other persons who opposed the war (Pember-Calvert, 2005). The law of sedition suggests that if someone publishes something that incites another person to do something illegal, the publisher of the incitement can be punished. This applies to subversive publications which aim to incite doubt and a will to revolt against government forces. It is not uncommon for private persons to sue the mass media on the grounds that something that was published or recorded or exhibited incited a third person to commit an illegal act (Pember-Calvert, 2005). The Gitlow case is one prime example of this. Benjamin Gitlow was found guilty of criminal anarchy on Feb.6, 1920 for publishing the Left Wing Manifesto, a 34-page pamphlet condemning the dominant “moderate socialism’ and advocated a far more militant posture calling for mass political strikes for the destruction of the existing government (Bowles, 1977). Gitlow’s lawyer, Walter Pollak argued that there was a general agreement that the First Amendment protected a Gitlow’s right to liberty of expression. The 14th Amendment says, in part, “No state shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Pollak asserted that included among the liberties guaranteed by the 14th Amendment is liberty of the press as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Therefore, a state cannot deprive a citizen of the freedom of the press that is guaranteed by the First Amendment without violating the 14th Amendment (Pember-Calvert, 2005). This loophole was considered by the court, as Justice Edward Sanford made a startlingly new constitutional pronouncement: “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.” The Gitlow vs. New York case has gained its important role in making the high court acknowledge that the Bill of Rights places limitations on the actions of states and local governments as well as on the federal government. Thanks to the Gitlow case, it not only emphasized that freedom of speech is protected by the 14th Amendment, but eventually, the court placed freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom from self-incrimination and freedom from illegal search and seizure under the same protection (Pember-Calvert, 2005). Although Gitlow lost his case and was sentenced to from five to ten years at hard labor, his case marked the beginning of attainment of a full measure of civil liberties for the people. Gitlow won a major constitutional victory however, he did not convince the high court that his political agitation was harmless. His publication was considered an attempt at advocating the violent overthrow of the government (Pember-Calvert, 2005). In this case, the courts put the stability of the government and the safety of the people as its priority. It struggled to balance a person’s right to freedom of expression with the general welfare of the public. To justify suppression of free expression in print and speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free expression is practiced, that the danger apprehended is imminent and that the evil to be prevented is a serious one (Pember-Calvert, 2005). The very controversial case of the Pentagon papers becomes another highlight in establishing the power of press freedom. In the summer of 1971, The New York Times, the Washington Post and some other newspapers got hold of pilfered copies of a top secret 47-volume government study officially entitled “History of the United States Decision-Making Process on Vietnam Policy” and began publishing a series of articles based on this document. Upon refusal to stop publication of these articles, the government got an injunction to control publication of the classified information. Initially, the government asserted that publication of such material violated federal espionage statutes and that the president had inherent power under his constitutional mandate to conduct foreign affairs to protect the national security by classifying information under secret and top secret. It also argued that unauthorized disclosure of classified information may put the nation at risk with its ability to conduct foreign affairs. To rebut these arguments, the New York Times and the Washington Post argued that government classification of documents is arbitrary and that injunction against the continued publication of the material violated the First Amendment. The case was won in favor of the press due to the fact that the government was unable to justify their request for the permanent restraining order. It was unsuccessful in proving that the ban was necessary to protect the nation from some kind of danger should the classified information leak out. The press’ victory is not based on its reasoning for their First Amendment rights, but for government failure to show evidence of the need for the injunction. However, had the press not used such argument, the government might be bolder in its pursuit for the injunction. The First Amendment can become a double-edged sword. It gives people the liberty to express their thoughts, feelings, opinions and criticisms on anyone or anything. However, like with anything else, such freedom of expression must be used with conscientious discretion. It does not advocate for careless defamation and libel. Using the First Amendment to merely besmirch another person’s character and reputation goes against the very purpose of its conception. To expose some realities to pursue the greater good is one main goal of the First Amendment. The truth stays unchanged even if people try to stretch it, cover it up, bend it or manipulate it any way they want to suit their purpose. It remains the same when one honestly faces it. To exploit the First Amendment with seditious acts is likewise unfavorable. Media has a great responsibility to its public to report the truth, however, it needs to balance it with strategies that do not incite rebellion and instability. The previous Espionage and Sedition Acts may have been very restrictive of the freedom of expression, however, these have been resorted to by government not only to protect its own reputation but also to protect the innocent public from imminent danger. Gitlow’s case and the Pentagon papers case are proofs that courts can fairly balance the scale of justice to serve the greater good. References Bowles, D. (1977) Newspaper Support for Free Expression in Times of Alarm, 1920 and 1940. Journalism Quarterly, Summer77, Vol. 54 Issue 2, p271- 279, Pember−Calvert (2005) Mass Media Law, McGraw−Hill Companies. Washburn, Patrick S.(1998). Espionage and Sedition Acts: World War I attempts to quiet criticism and dissent, . History of the Mass Media in the United States: An Encyclopedia, pp. 206-207 Read More