Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-08-13

| In these days of communistic and
anarchistic excitement, does the
United States Constitution guarantee
to all men the absolute right Of free
speech? The Supreme Court deci-
sions indicate that there is a limit
even to the scope Of the first amend.
ment of the original Constitution.
When a man was arrested for strik-
ing another upon the nose, he indig-
nantly asked If he did not have a
right to swing his arms as he saw At
| in q "free country" and the court re-
piled that his right to swing his arms
ended just where the other mans nose
began. In plain language, there is no
freedom beyond the equal rights of
| others.
The first amendment stipulates:
Congress shall make no law respect
ing an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press" etc.
Many laymen, and some lawyers,
believe that that Is a guaranteed
license Of speech, however slanderous,
| libelous or seditious, equally appli-
cable at all times and under all con-
ditions of public excitement or danger.
The Supreme Court has construed it
| otherwise, and it is important that the
leaders of mobs and strikes at present
| be Informed as to the scope Of their
| license.
The first amendment to the ConSti-
tuition does not create any right to
| free speech, or anything else which
did not exist before; it simply forbids
Congress from interfering with such
right. It leaves such control to the
| Statesmen the Federal Government
and 1t does not undertake to limit the
| States in that matter, one way or
| the other. In the same sense, the fact
| that Congress is forbidden to make
any laws regarding the establishment
of a religion does not prevent the
| States doing so, nor does it either for
[ bid religion or guarantee religious
population. 1t simply says to Con-
gress: Hands off; it's none of your
affair.""
Justice Holmes of the United States
| Supreme Court, in the decision sus-
| tanning the lower court in Schenk VS..
United States Gao u. S., Az, said:
I'VE admit that in many places and
in ordinary times the defendants, IN
saying all that was said in the cir
cumstances, would have been within
their constitutional rights. But the
character Of every act depends upon
the circumstances in which 1t is done.
| (Aikens VS.. Wisconsin, 1875 u. s., l94,
205, 206) The most stringent protec-
ton of free speech would not protect
a man In falsely shouting Fire! in
theater, and causing panic. 1t docs
not even protect man from an
Injunction against uttertng words
which may have all effect OF force
The question, in every case, Is whether
the words used are used in SUCH cir
cumstances and are Of such nature
as to create a clear and present DAN
ger that they will bring about sub
Stantive evils that Congress mas
right to prevent.
The exact definition OF language
used by an agitator OF violent re-
sistance Of law and of Government is
immaterial--it Is a question of the
reasonable effect Of such language
under the circumstances. Antony's
grafton over Caesars body protested
against violence, even while 1t was
heaping incentives to violence which
the orator knew would incite the mob.
No first amendment to the American
Constitution would have saved Antony
from arrest and prosecution under our
laws or under the common law against
sedition. Every man Is responsible
for the normal influence of his words
according to circumstances.
Some years ago there was a chronic
state of lawlessness in Cincinnati.
There had been from one to three
murders each week. The present
writer was then a cub reporter doing
'police news" there, with the gruesome
duty of describing the crimes. There
had been no hangings in Hamilton
County (CincinnatD for more than 20
years: it was common gossip that a
certain lawyer controlled the courts. so
that no jury could convict. Then there
| were three double murders within two
weeks, so atrocious that the public
indignation passed all bounds. ana tne