FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR LAWLESS ACTION?
War protesters: Freedom of speech or lawless action?
By: Luigi DeFrancesco
Is it really an exercise of freedom of speech or undermining a President, who happens to represent a political ideology opposite to the one they belong to, and placing our troops in harms way?
Is this act of “presumed” freedom of speech bring results of unintended (or intended) consequences in the battlefield?
The USA was involved in a War that, in accordance with the War power Act of 1973 was presented to congress. Congress passed a resolution approving the action against Afghanistan and Iraq. Both Democrats and Republicans voted for the resolution. Congress approval of the war resulted in the commitment of our troops. The performance of our soldiers has been so astonishing to make all Americans proud. Does a minute fraction of the USA population have the right under the freedom of speech clause to undermine our government action based on a decision made by Democrats and Republicans alike, to be involved in a War against terrorists?
Has the Supreme Court rendered an opinion on dissent in time of war? The following cases should give us some guidance. In Schenck v. United States judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. opinion, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to distribute fliers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a “clear and present danger” to the government’s recruitment efforts for the war.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio the United States Supreme Court held that the government couldn’t punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In his concurrence of this decision judge William O. Douglas dealt with the classic example of a man “falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” In order to explain why someone could be legitimately prosecuted for this, Douglas called it an example in which “speech is brigaded with action.” In the view of Douglas and Black, this was probably the only sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech.
How one would apply the two Supreme Court decisions to today “dissent” against the USA involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan?
With the Schenck v. United States case one could state the case that “the clear and present danger” to the population of the United States of America by the terrorists is real and devastating as the attack against the Twin Towers both in 1993 and in 2001 as shown. These two attacks on the same target show the persistent attempt to do the USA terrible harm therefore our government has the duty to stop the terrorists that are a “clear and present danger” any where in the world therefore based on this decision no USA citizen has the right to undermine our government effort to protect our lives and properties.
In the Brandenburg v. Ohio decision one could conclude that the “dissent” shown only against our governments is directed to incite imminent lawless action. Here is why: the war against Iraq has been over for a while. The free elected governments of Iraq and the USA are working to bring law and order in that land. The people that are taking armed action against the legitimate government of Iraq are lawless terrorists that believe that Iraq would be a better staging area against the interest of the people of the United States. Our troops and those of Iraq are placing their lives on the line in order to achieve their goal the same way United States troops tried and succeeded to do in Germany and Italy after the end World War II. Then the United States solved the insurgency problem quickly by executing insurgent on the spot where they were captured. The History channel showed a documentary on the German insurgency not long ago. The other factor that helped our troops was that no “dissent” was allowed during that period. After sixty-three years we still have troops in Germany and Italy.
How are dissenters inciting lawless action? Ho Chi Min the north Vietnam dictator stated it very plainly: without the mass demonstrations in the USA against the war in South Vietnam we would have never won the armed conflict against the USA Armed Forces. The Vietnam era dissenters incited a lawless action by North Vietnam when it broke the Peace Treaty of 1973 and invaded South Vietnam with catastrophic results in the region in human lives lost not only in South Vietnam but also in Cambodia.
The terrorists in Iraq and around the world are counting on the same “dissenters” to continue undermining the governments of Iraq and USA with the hope that they will force the USA to pull out of Iraq and then they would only have to face a weaker army similar to that of South Vietnam.
Each time the “dissenters” protest against our government the terrorist get bolder and more bombs explode against our troops.
Are these “dissenters” inciting imminent lawless action against our troops or are they exercising their freedom of speech? You be the judge!
Comments to: Luigi DeFrancesco
lsdefrank@yahoo.com
The argument most certainly will be, “America is not in a “declared war”.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:28 am
[…] hmriley wrote an interesting post today on FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR LAWLESS ACTION?Here’s a quick excerptHere is why: the war against Iraq has been over for a while. The free elected governments of Iraq and the USA are working to bring law and order in that land. The people that are taking armed action against the legitimate government of … […]