CHAPTER 19:4: Sedition, Espionage, National Security

CHAPTER 19:4: Sedition, Espionage, National Security

Chapter 19:4-5: o We will examine how the protection of civil rights and the demands of national security conflict. o We will examine the limits to the freedom of assembly and petition.

(Pro 31:9) Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.

Introduction: o Joseph McCarthy sought to destroy and smear people for alleging being communist in the 1950s. o He claimed that the U.S. government is infiltrated by Communists. o He managed to destroy dozens of reputations. o Ultimately, he was exposed and denounced for his actions.

Introduction: o Government has the right to protect itself against domestic threats to the nation s security. o But how far can government go when it tries to accomplish that goal?

PUNISHABLE ACTS: o Article III Section 3 states that treason can consist only in levying war against the nation or supporting its enemies. o Congress has made it a crime during times of peace of war. o To commit either espionage, sabotage, to attempt to overthrow the government by force. o Or to conspire to do any of these things.

PUNISHABLE ACTS: o Espionage: Practice spying for a foreign power. o Sabotage: Involves an act of destruction intended to hinder a nation s war or defense effort.

PUNISHABLE ACTS: o Sedition: The incitement of resistance to lawful authority. o It does not necessarily involve acts of violence or betrayal.

Alien and Sedition Acts: o Congress first acted to curb opposition to the government in the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. o Those laws gave the President power to deport undesirable aliens and made any false, scandalous, and malicious criticism of the government a crime.

Alien and Sedition Acts: o It was unconstitutional, but they were never tested in the courts. o Some 25 persons paid fines or went to jail for violating them. o The acts expired before President Jefferson took office and in 1801, pardoned those sentences under the acts.

SEDITIOUS ACTS IN WARTIME: o Congress passed another sedition law during World War I, as part of the Espionage Act of 1917. o That law made it a crime to encourage disloyalty, interfere with the draft, obstruct recruiting, incite insubordination in the armed forces, or hinder the sale of government bonds. o The act also made it a crime to willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States.

SEDITIOUS ACTS IN WARTIME: o Schneck v. United States. o Case is particularly noteworthy because the court s opinion, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes established the clear and present danger rule. o Words can be weapons.

SEDITIOUS ACTS IN WARTIME: o The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. o In other words, words can be outlawed, those who utter them can be punished when the words they use trigger an immediate danger that criminal acts will follow.

SEDITION IN PEACETIME: o In 1940, Congress passed a new sedition law, the Smith Act, and made it applicable in peacetime. o Congress passed two other statutes. o The Internal Security Act of 1950 and the Communist Control Act of 1954.

SEDITION IN PEACETIME: o Smith Act made it unlawful for any person to teach or advocate the violent overthrow of government in the United States or to organize or knowingly be a member of any group with such an aim. o It also forbids conspiring with others to commit any of those acts.

SEDITION IN PEACETIME: o An attempt to overthrow the government by force, even though doomed from the outset because of inadequate numbers or power of the revolutionists, is a sufficient evil for congress to prevent (Dennis v. United States, 1951) o Mainly dealt with Communists.

Freedom of Assembly: o The Constitution Guarantees: the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition government for redress of grievances. o The 14th Amendment s Due Process Clause also protects those rights of assembly and petitions against actions by the states or their local governments.

Freedom of Assembly: o Peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime. o The Constitution protects the right of the people to assemble to gather with one another to express their views on public matters. o It protects their right to organize in political parties, pressure groups, and other organizations to influence public policy.

Freedom of Assembly: o It also protects the people s right to bring their views to the attention of public officials by such varied means as written petition letters, or advertisements; lobbying; or parades, marches, or other demonstrations.

SEDITION IN PEACETIME: o First and Fourteenth Amendments protect the rights of peaceable assembly and petition. o The Constitution does not give people the right to incite others to violence, to block a public street, close a school, or otherwise to endanger life, property, or public order.

TIME-PLACE-MANNER REGULATIONS: o Government can make and enforce reasonable rules covering the time, place, and manner of assemblies. o Thus, the Supreme Court has upheld a city ordinance that prohibits making noise or causing any other diversion near a school if that action disrupts school activities. o It has upheld a state law that forbids parades near a courthouse when they are intended to influence court proceedings.

TIME-PLACE-MANNER REGULATIONS: o But the rule for keeping the public peace must be more than reasonable. o They must also be precisely drawn and fairly administered. o Court struck down a city ordinance that made it a crime for three or more persons to assemble on a side walk or street corner and there conduct themselves in a manner annoying to persons passing by, or to occupants of adjacent buildings.

TIME-PLACE-MANNER REGULATIONS: o The Court found the ordinance too vague. o It was so loosely drawn that it contained an obvious invitation to discriminatory enforcement against those whose association together is annoying because their ideas, their lifestyle, or their physical appearance is resented by the majority.

TIME-PLACE-MANNER REGULATIONS: o Government s rules must be content neutral. o That is, while government can regulate assemblies on the basis of time, place, and manner, it cannot regulate them on the basis of what might be said there. o Power to control traffic or keep a protest rally from becoming a riot can be used as an excuse to prevent speech. o The line between crowd control and thought control can be very thin indeed.

DEMONSTRATIONS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY: o Over the past several years, most of the court s freedom of assembly cases have involved organized demonstrations. o Demonstrations are, of course, assemblies. o Most demonstrations take place in public places on streets and sidewalks, in parks or public buildings, and so on. o Demonstrations take place in these locations because it is the public they want to reach.

DEMONSTRATIONS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY: o Given all this, the Supreme Court has often upheld laws that require advance notice and permits for demonstrations in public places.

DEMONSTRATIONS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY: o The authority of a municipality to impose regulations in order to assure the safety and convenience of the people in the use of public highways has never been regarded as inconsistent with civil liberties but rather as one of the means of safe guarding the good order on which they ultimately depend. o The question in a particular case is whether the control is exercised so deny the right of assembly and the opportunity for the communication of thought and the discussion of public questions.

DEMONSTRATIONS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY: o Balance between public safety and public protest. o Gregory v. Chicago, 1969. o Under police protection, Dick Gregory and others had marched singing, chanting, and carrying placards from city hall to the mayor s home some five miles away. o Marching in the streets around the mayor s house, they demanded the firing of the city s school superintendent and an end to de facto segregation the city s schools.

DEMONSTRATIONS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY: o A crowd of several hundred people, including many residents of the all-white neighborhood quickly gathered. o Soon, the bystanders began throwing insults and threats, rocks, eggs, and other objects. o The police tried to keep order but after about an hour, they decided that serious violence would break out. o At that point, they ordered the demonstrators to leave the area. o When Gregory and others failed to do so, the police arrested them and charged them with disorderly conduct.

DEMONSTRATIONS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY: o The convictions of the demonstrators were unanimously overturned by the High Court. o The Court noted that the marchers had done no more than exercise their constitutional rights of assembly and petition. o Neighborhood residents and others, not the demonstrators, has caused the disorder. o So long, as the demonstrators acted peacefully, they could not be punished for disorderly conduct. o In abortion cases, demonstrators could not block access to clinic but must be a reasonable limit away from the clinic.

PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE: o Privately owned shopping centers are not public streets, sidewalks, parks and other places of public assembly. o Thus no one has a constitutional right to do such things as hand out political leaflets or ask people to sign petitions in those places.

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: o The guarantees of freedom of assembly and petition include a guarantee of association. o That is, those guarantees include the right to associate with others to promote political, economic, and other social causes.

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: o That right is not set out in so many words in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has said it is beyond doubt that freedom to engage in association for advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable act. o Of course there is no right to gather or pursues in illegal ends.

Do you think the government should censor and go after anyone that says something hostile against the United States government online? What type of speech or demonstrations do you think should be censored by the government?