Charles Brown writes: >> 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.
It seems that you are making a Frederick Douglas type argument -- the Constitution and its principles are correct, but have been misapplied. I don't think that is inconsistent with what I am suggesting. Why could not (or why should not) a socialist society adopt the language of the 1st Amendment as its guiding principle for treatment of dissent in the society? Because the 1st Amendment is very short, it will need interpretation in concrete instances, so why not also see what the Supreme Court has done with concrete instances? It would have no obligation to be bound, but why reinvent the wheel? David Shemano
