Why not simply adopt the case law developed in the United States Supreme Court regarding freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment? That case law, developed over 200 years, has dealt with the question both in the abstract and in the specifics, including wartime conditions.
David Shemano ^^^^^^ David, My reading of U.S. First Amendment law history is that the freedom of speech was often absent when it really counted ,as during WWI when anti-war activists were jailed for trying to get workers not to go to war in Europe. Those were the first U.S. Supreme Court cases too, by the way. There was no clear and present danger to the U.S. from Germany way "over there" at that time, such that socialist anti-war speech should have been suppressed. It wasn't crying "fire" falsely in a crowded theatre, contra Mr. Justice Holmes , the big civil libertarian's claim. Then freedom of speech disappeared in the late forties and fifties at another critical point. There was no clear and present danger from U.S. Communist speech in the late forties and early fifties. The Soviet Union had just been an ally in a big war. The claim of a Soviet "threat" was a big lie. Also, the CPUSA was not trying to overthrow the U.S. government by force and violence. That was a treacherous lie, to justify suppression of freedom of speech in the critical political debate of our lifetime. By that suppression, the American people were denied the opportunity to hear the argument for socialism over capitalism. So, as far as socialism and civil liberties in the U.S., seems that the U.S. state has cheated in preventing socialist ideas from getting a fair hearing in the "marketplace of ideas". Obviously, the marketplace doesn't want there to be the liberty of anti-marketplace speech. Today ,we get suppression of speech like what Leigh posted (excerpted below). I mean the "war" hasn't been Constitutionally declared. If it's so important, why doesn't Congress declare war officially ? Again, it is using war danger as a guise for suppression of speech. I guess I feel that the First Amendment in the U.S. has been largely a fraud, because the ideas that fundamentally challenge the system are not allowed to diffuse among the population when the population might take them to heart even when they are not incitement to imminent lawless action. Charles Kafka-esque doesn't do it justice. This is 'Alice in Wonderland.' A lawyer describes the American totalitarian state as applied to non-white, non-christian, non-Americans. Some of the victims elaborate on their experiences at the end of the article.. . > Joseph Margulies, a Northwestern University law professor who has > represented several detainees at Guantanamo, said the prisoners "can't > even say what our government did to these guys to elicit the > statements that are the basis for them being held. Kafka-esque doesn't > do it justice. This is 'Alice in Wonderland.' " . MSNBC.com WP: U.S. seeks silence on detainees Court is asked to bar detainees from talking about interrogations By Carol D. Leonnig and Eric Rich The Washington Post Updated: 4:23 a.m. PT Nov 4, 2006 The Bush administration has told a federal judge that terrorism suspects held in secret CIA prisons should not be allowed to reveal details of the "alternative interrogation methods" that their captors used to get them to talk.
