I am disagreeing with the majority of the supreme court as curbing speech during wartime is unconstitutional. This law can be found in the First Amendment which calls for free speech to always be upheld. This Amendment does not make exceptions for wartime. The First Amendment is the most crucial part of this case. Both Debs and Schenck are being tried as they have broke the Sedition Act. This law should never have been established as it curbs free speech that offers an opinion that is against the war. There justification for this law is that not having this puts America in a bad position. In reality this law does the opposite as more people may become against the war if they know that they are being suppressed because of the war. If we prove these men to be guilty does this lead to even further suppression? Even with these laws they should still not be found guilty as these laws should only be used if what they are saying is actively causing violent mobs or calling for people to assassinate American leaders which these two men did not. The Sedition Act may have been established with good intentions but its loose idea of what should be …show more content…
His Pamphlet does not call for violence or any kind of drastic measures. He just wants the United States to take a step back on their current ideas. He is just trying to show people his viewpoint this pamphlet does not hurt the war effort. Some things he says like “Upholders of military ideas are unfit teachers” could be a little inaccurate, but things like this are not taking it too far. This is a problem with the Sedition Acts as they do not specify how far is too far. Maybe with more clarification these laws would deserve to be taken more seriously. The law relies too much on circumstances as in normal times what he is saying would be perfectly acceptable and having acceptability be determined by if there is a war is morally