Schenck versus United States - Essay Example

Dos Passos the 42nd Parallel Schenck v. US (1919) Schenck, the then General Secretary of the Socialist Party in Philadelphia distributed over 15,000 leaflets to men viable for recruitment in the army during World War I. The leaflets had statements such as "Do not submit to intimidation" and "Assert your rights”. In addition, the leaflets clearly stated that military conscription equaled involuntary servitude and was, therefore, against Thirteenth Amendment. Granted, Schenck derived from the constitution to make his point; however, the court held that Schenck was in violation of Section 3 of the Espionage Act of 1917. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in proclaiming a unanimous ruling stated “…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…” Debs v. US (1919) Eugene V. Debs a socialist party presidential candidate made a speech in Ohio considered an obstruction to drafting of potential World War 1 soldiers. For instance, he praised those imprisoned for obstructing the draft example Kate Richards O'Hare and those who showed insubordination in view of military drafting example Rose Pastor Stokes. While Debs put substantial effort to guard his speech the court found that he was in violation of he Espionage act I view of the “clear and present danger test”. “…The main theme of the speech was Socialism, its growth, and a prophecy of its ultimate success. With that we have nothing to do, but if a part or the manifest intent of the more general utterances was to encourage those present to obstruct the recruiting service and if in passages such encouragement was directly given, the immunity of the general theme may not be enough to protect the speech…” Discussion The Espionage Act of 1917 stemmed from the need to curtail the “negative climate” that preceded America’s involvement in World War 1. While the act focused on a vast number of issues, one aspect in particular sent ripples that ended in storms from a political, social and legal perspective. This aspect is section 3 of the Espionage act that touches on the most fundamental of human rights, freedom of speech. Based on this legendary act, the Supreme Court specified a limitation on freedom of speech. The court’s reasoning in these two cases derives from “the circumstances” at the time both these acts occurred. There is no argument that both Debs and Schenck were entitled to uphold the rights of free speech provided for in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. Nonetheless, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr holds that “…the circumstances of wartime permit greater restrictions on free speech than would be allowed during peacetime…” The second issue is that of clear and present danger. This involves ascertaining the true intention of the individual (defendant). What stands out in both cases is that both defendants had a socialist agenda, which is not illegal under any law in America. However, the purposes of their acts and utterances were not legal. To refer to Holmes ruling “…if a part or the manifest intent of the more general utterances was to encourage those present to obstruct the recruiting service …such encouragement was directly given, the immunity of the general theme may not be enough to protect the speech…” How Does John Dos Passo’s Novel Responds to Supreme Court's Rulings? The beauty of John Dos Passos Trilogy is that while it is largely a work of fiction, he incorporates disguised elements of reality to make his point. In the first book of this trilogy The 42nd Parallel, Dos Passos examines a character Gene Debs who seems to largely derive from the defendant in Debs v. US (1919). Dos Passos in this instance looks at the social response the Supreme Court ruling received. "...the people of Haute...Indiana...Middle West were fond of him and thought of him as a kindly uncle and wanted to be with him and to have him give them candy..." (27) This statement clearly brings out the fact that society appreciates freedom of speech and indeed sympathizes with those who suffer for the preservation of this freedom. However, not everyone in society is willing to sufferer for this freedom or at least not to he extreme of going o prison. He brings out this point by analyzing a people’s reaction to a man who had just come out of prison for fighting for democracy. “…they were afraid of him as if he had contracted a social disease, syphilis or leprosy...on account of the flag and prosperity and making the world safe for democracy, they were afraid to be with him, or to think much of him for fear they might believe him..."(27) It is also clear from this statement that Dos Passos is not entirely enthusiastic about the incarceration of persons whose actions he considers noble t the cause o freedom of speech and democracy. In the prologue to the text the 42nd Parallel, Dos Passos gives a passionate view of what freedom of speech is. He summarizes it as U.S. A is a “speech of the people” not just in reference to the trilogy but also to the core of Americas democracy – freedom of speech and expression. The court in its own way tries to curb all forms of tyranny from the affluent and non-affluent in society and this is one thing the author holds in high regard. However, an author’s personal experiences, personality and principles also influence their works. For years, critiques have pointed out Dos Passos leanings towards socialism and his sympathy towards the “common man” as opposed to the privileged in society. This aspect of the author is crucial because it is evident that he sees freedom of speech as one whose tenets largely derive from the ideologies of the affluent in society and mainly for their benefit. To bring out this view of political bias attributed to the Supreme Court ruling, he states “…it is the liberty of the individual business man that the progressive wing of the Republican Party is trying to protect..." (40) In making new legislations or statutes, courts now and before were keen on the current state of events within and outside the country. To this, one can conclude that American law is not static. However, people differ in opinion as to the reason behind the flexibility or rigidity of the law ad Dos Passos does this elegantly. The character Dr. Bingham brings out this point by quoting the immortal bard, “…Lowliness is your ambition's ladder whereto the climber upward turns his face but when he once attains the topmost round he the unto the ladder turns his back..." (46) The author’s view is that the very same freedoms the governments sought to achieve were threatening them and the ruling of the Supreme Court were a means of suppressing some of these freedoms for instance the Espionage act of 1917. Works Cited Passos, John Dos. U. S. A. New York: Random House Inc., 1936. Read More