Social Needs versus Individual Rights in Legal Realism

In light the twitter blog posted by Prof. Kurdys, I began to think of other scenarios where a right of an individual (freedom of speech in the twitter) interfere with legal realism's view of social needs or utility (not allowing this twitter member to "tweet" as his actions would cause harm). A good example I thought of was the red scare during the cold war (I think we had mentioned this is one group's presentation) and how, if one were to write a novel positing that America should become Communistic or Socialistic, this should be outlawed--during appropriate time I suppose--because of possible negative effects it may have.

I guess this is another example of freedom of speech though Sure, I don't think anyone really wants another individual writing a novel stating that we should become Communistic or Socialistic during the cold war, but does not that person still have a right, namely freedom of speech, to do so. And, if he does have that right, can the government take it away? I am unsure, though I think the safety of the country and individual's needs must come first. Therefore, if one takes away the right of freedom of speech in such a scenario that the freedom of speech could interfere with safety then, yes, I think it would be appropriate.

It is still interesting, however, to see how freedom of speech has shaped America and America's government. I recall one debate, specifically when our country was just forming and the polemic of whether we should be more of a federal or anti-federal government. During this debate many articles (freedom of speech) were created arguing both sides, federalism and anti-federalism. Nonetheless, this was generally permissible (as far as I know; though the authors may have been castigated by the general public) at this time. Still, today if someone were to write a journal that wanted to change the government (suppose they wanted us to be socialistic or communistic)--if it is written at a time in which if the journal were published it would hurt the American well being--then it is not permissible. (Though couldn't one argue that when these federalist anti-federalist articles were written they could hurt America's well being and, therefore, should not have been allowed--if this were so, however, then we wouldn't have the government we have today.)

While I still believe safety ought to be a major concern, I do believe that there is a fine line between sacrificing rights (e.g. freedom of speech) for the over all well being of the country. I guess I would like to know where the distinction is, that is, I would like to know where and when denying a right in order to promote the safety of the country is acceptable.