Response to Schenck v. United States

Call it paranoia of “the man,” but I think that any time the government is allowed to limit the rights of citizens (regardless of the situation) it is problematic. I am especially worried by the thought of the government limited the freedom of thought and speech, whether political or apolitical. On one hand I understand why it might be necessary for a country to disallow the voicing of anti-government opinions in order to maintain a façade of solidarity in the face of enemies, foreign or domestic. However, what exactly does it take to constitute ‘wartime’? America has been involved in conflicts in Iraq in some way or another for the better part of most of our lives, but I doubt there is anyone who would say that it’s a war the way the Second World War was. At what point does a military action escalate to the point in which it is okay to limit rights? Specifically, the right to speak against the government? At what point do the rights return?

My problem with the argument against certain forms of speech during wartime is that the same logic could be used (and has been) to justify the limiting of speech in ‘peaceful’ times as speeches of insubordination could undermine national solidarity and productivity. The amendments protect us from governmental removal of certain rights. In order to uphold the integrity of such laws, there must be some sort of consistency in its execution. If the law could be separated so that we could understand it logically apart from society, then I might agree that removal of such rights is good for the whole of the country, but it is so entwined into society that I do not think this is possible. It would require the understanding of what wartime is and is not.