Madison County Democrat. (London, Ohio) 19??-1958, 1951-06-08
FREEDOM OF SPEECH MAIN
POINT IN COURT DECISION
RY Janea Marlo,4


WASHINGTON, -tRl- Free
dom of speech was the main point
involved in the supreme court
decision upholding the conviction
of the IL top communist party
leaders.
They had been found guilty in
19d9 by a trial jury in New York
Of conspiring 10 teach overthrow
of this government BY force. This
is an ABC on how the Supreme
Court reached its decision:
The first amendment to the
constitution, part of the bill of
rights, guarantees everyone the
right of free speech. 1t says. con-
gross shall make no law
abridging the freedom of speech
From that time to this : since
many other cases involving free
dom of speech have come before
the court during the years :
the court has had to face this
problem:
Just how Tree can speech be?
Unlimited? ? Does the constitution
mean that congress, elected by the
people, has no right to pass
law protecting their government
from persons advocating its over
throw by force?
The court has recognized that
free speech can't be unlimited. II
has been the courts problem
through the years to protect the
government and at the same time
safeguard everyone's freedom of
speech rs much as possible.
This is illustrated in a famous
decision, written by Justice Oliver
Wendell Holmes in 1919, when tho
court upheld the conviction of a
socialist who. during World War
|, sent circulars to draftees. urg-
ing them not TO let themselves
be taken into the armed forces.
What Holmes said, in short. was
this: What a man says one time.
when the government isn't in real
danger, may be all right but not all
right when there is danger. He
said:
we admit that In many places
and in ordinary times the defen-
dant in saying all that was said
in the circular would have been
within this) constitutional rights.
But the character of every act
depends upon the circumstances
in which it is done the question
in every case is whether the
words used are of such a nature
rs 70 create clear and present
danger that they will bring about
tho substantive evils that Con
sress has right to prevent"
In 1910 Congress decided it had
a right to pass a law, called the
Smith Act, which makes it
crime TO conspire to teach force
iul overthrow Of the government.
Nine years later the II commun-
lists were found guilty Of violat-
ing that law.
The Communists lawyers ap-
pealed to the Supreme Court 10
throw out this conviction on var
ious grounds but they particularly
emphasized the question of free
speech. They asked the court to
rule this way:
The Smith Act is unconStitution-
al that Congress had no right
TO pass such n law since it is con-
trary to the first amendment and
limits freedom of speech and
that therefore the IL should not
be charged with violating it.
And they argued that the Smith
Act is an "unabaslled attempt to
suppress political ideals" By that
reasoning they asked the court
70 believe that the communist
party is simply a political party,
lil<e the Democrats and Republi-
cans.
But government lawyers argued
to the court the II Communists
were "Conspirators" and "enem-
les of the state and tools of
Moscow, seeking to overthrow this
government.
The court ruled:
/. Congress has the right to
pass such a law as the Smith Act
to protect the government from
armed rebellion. Said the court:
We reject any principle of gov
ernmental helplessness in the face
Of preparation for revolution,
which principle, carried TO its log
ical conclusion, must lead to an
aroly."
2. That tho right of free speech
is not an unlimited right but that
it's value must sometimes be SUBJ
ordinatcd to other values. such
as preservation Of the government
unless the people as a whole By
peaceful means. such as votinr.
wish TO change It. Therefore the
smith Act is not contrary TO the
first amendment.
3. There was 4 clear and pres
ent danger from these IL COM
munist leaders since they I'm
tended to overthrow The govern
ment Of the United States as
speedily as the circumstances
would Y,arr,,if