Antiwar Voices

                                                                

    For a nation like the United States, going to war carries many other meanings besides just battling to resolve a conflict. As a nation who has taken on the role of peacekeepers of the world, war means money, resources, and maintaining unity throughout the nation's citizens. The mainstream media has a role in projecting a sense of unity across the United States to create a sense of unity as one nation rising up as one to defeat threats to our freedom. Expressing these ideas is an important use of the Free Speech protected by the First Amendment during wartime when encouragement and information need to reach a large audience quickly. However, in the midst of unifying messages to gain public support during wartime, there are also voices of opposition which are often silenced. 

    When the United States formally entered World War I, in 1917, it became a priority to protect the interest of national security at a great cost.  Despite a great deal of opposition for going to war and the United States' prior position of neutrality in the beginning of the European powers' aggression with each other, an American ship sunk by Germany prompted further U.S. engagement in the war. With the death of over one hundred Americans at the hands of the Germans, President Woodrow Wilson acted. At this point, America's fight to protect our freedoms and fight socialism was a primary focus in the media and caused much controversy at home in the U.S.. 

★ This article from History.com provides great detail ★

of the process taken by the U.S. to formally enter war, and what prompted the action to be taken

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/america-enters-world-war-i   

  

    At the start of U.S. involvement in World War I, citizens gathered peaceably in many major cities throughout the country to voice their concerns for entering war and journalists used their voices through publication, but these antiwar voices were put down in many ways. In particular, one pivotal Supreme Court case brings attention to the balance of First Amendment protection and national security. In a series of leaflets published by Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer, they expressed views “that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude” as explained in the case’s Oyez summary. 

    Two years prior to the release of these leaflets, Espionage Act was passed which punished government workers who spoke out against the government, and was aimed at punishing people specifically during the years of World War I. In addition to the Espionage Act, the Sedition Act was also passed to punish private people who spoke out against the government and involvement in World War I.The very first statement of the First Amendment clearly states that “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”, which is alarming congress was able to do so in the first place. Though the Sedition Act was repealed in 1921, its initial passing calls the very foundations of our government into question, and while the leaflets were released as propaganda by socialist party supporters, their free speech expressed valid points of the draft’s violation of rights also protected by the Constitution.

    Regardless of the Supreme Court’s tedious contemplation of whether or not Schenck and Baer’s journalism was a threat to national security and if the Espionage Act violated the First Amendment, the case set an important precedent for future cases involving these convictions. The Supreme Court’s “Clear and Present Danger” Test was created, establishing according to the case’s decision that “the First Amendment does not protect speech that approaches creating a clear and present danger of a significant evil that Congress has power to prevent”. 

★ For a closer look into the details of Schenck v. United States, ★

this user-friendly article by Oyez is an excellent source!

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47 

    Each time a case is brought up to the Supreme Court, their decisions create a precedent that creates a lasting impact on our freedoms, which can be altered by judicial activism, or maintained by judicial restraint, and even a case like Schenck v U.S. that occurred a century ago has shaped our ability to speak freely now in the twenty-first century.