# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How WWI Changed America: Selling the War

# data[].attributes.headline
Below, please post other areas and examples, since WWI, where Free Speech and the First Amendment have come into play

# data[].attributes.subject
Below, please post other areas and examples, since WWI, where Free Speech and the First Amendment have come into play

# data[].attributes.body
Your posts may include, but are not limited to, Supreme Court cases, Legislation, and Current Events (within the past 5 years)

Please post at least once

# data[].attributes.body
-1914-1918
-Central Powers vs. Allied Powers
-Assassination of the Archduke
-"War to end all wars"
-A war built on Propaganda

-US involvement from 1917-1918

# data[].attributes.body
1. What does Espionage mean? What does it generally refer to?
2. Where have we seen a Sedition Act put in place in prior US History?

# data[].attributes.body
Propaganda Posters from World War I are considered Primary Sources. Being that they are from the time period that we are focusing on, study the images, symbolism, and texts to best understand the message of each poster.

--How do the Propaganda Posters below depict the First World War?
--Do you think these posters and the tactics of the CPI were successful?
--What pushback may emerge from those who are adamant about staying out of the War?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 4 M-A-I-N Causes of World War One in 6 Minutes

# data[].attributes.body
As we move along, we'll take a look at some of the background facts of World War I as well as a look at the First Amendment and the idea of Censorship.
This Padlet is a visual guide for you to follow along with our lesson and interact when called upon!

# data[].attributes.body
-Think about what this word means?
-Where have you heard it before and in what ways have we seen censorship at work in history and in our lives (trust me, there are examples out there!)?

Please access the Mentimeter link below to respond to these questions!

# data[].attributes.headline
What are the Five Freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment?

# data[].attributes.subject
What are the Five Freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment?

# data[].attributes.body
1) Pro-War Government led by Woodrow Wilson
-Wilson's approach to the War was one that largely relied on defeating the Central Powers and emphasizing globalist worldview

2) Majority of American population
-most people in the US saw the war from either a neutral perspective ("not our fight") or from a negative view ("not our fight AND stances taken by immigrants in the US)

# data[].attributes.body
Build popular support through propaganda--> Committee on Public Information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Committee on Public Information  Propaganda

# data[].attributes.body
How do we define nationalism?

# data[].attributes.body
-Immigrants
-Socialists
-Pacifists
-Anarchists

# data[].attributes.headline
Espionage Act of 1917 & Sedition Act of 1918

# data[].attributes.subject
Espionage Act of 1917 & Sedition Act of 1918

# data[].attributes.body
-June 1917
-First REAL legislation to impact the First Amendment
-Limit any collection or dissemination of material that negatively impacts the US and the war effort

# data[].attributes.body
-Amendment to the Espionage Act
-May 1918
-Crack down on dissenters of War and of the Selective Service Draft
-Joint effort by Wilson, Congress, and influential Press

# data[].attributes.body
Eugene v. Debs
Charles Schenck
Jacob Abrams
Jacob Frohwerk

# data[].attributes.headline
Oliver Wendell Holmes & the Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.subject
Oliver Wendell Holmes & the Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.body
Holmes (Associate Justice) authored majority of SCOTUS opinions in Free Speech cases during this time
He would institute two very critical phrases and tests on the First Amendment
1--"Clear and Present Danger"
2--"Shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre"

# data[].attributes.body
Upon being assigned one of the four cases to take a cursory look at, please take your time in understanding the facts of the case you are given and be prepared to share

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Facts of the case

Eugene Debs delivered a public speech that incited his audience to interfere with military recruitment during World War I. He was indicted for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for allegedly attempting to cause insubordination and refusal of duty in the US military. He was also accused of attempted obstruction recruitment and enlistment. He appealed his conviction on First Amendment grounds.

Question

Did Debs' conviction under the Espionage Act of 1917 violate his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech?

Conclusion

In a unanimous opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Court upheld Debs's conviction. The Court reasoned that Debs's case was similar to Schenck v. United States (1919), in which the Court had concluded that the arrest of an individual for distributing leaflets encouraging readers to oppose the draft was constitutional. The Court found Debs's sympathy for individuals convicted of opposing the draft and obstructing recruitment analogous to the situation in Schenck. Thus, his conviction was valid.

Cite this page

"Debs v. United States." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us211. Accessed 30 Mar. 2021.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Eugene Debs delivered a public speech that incited his audience to interfere with military recruitment during World War I. He was indicted for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for allegedly attempting to cause insubordination and refusal of duty in the US military. He was also accused of attempted obstruction recruitment and enlistment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Facts of the case

In 1918, the United States participated in a military operation on Russian soil against Germany after the Russian Revolution overthrew the tsarist regime. Russian immigrants in the US circulated literature calling for a general strike in ammunition plants to undermine the US war effort. The defendants were convicted for two leaflets thrown from a New York City window. One denounced the sending of American troops to Russia, and the second denounced the war and advocated for the cessation of the production of weapons to be used against Soviet Russia. They were sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Question

Do the amendments to the Espionage Act or the application of those amendments in this case violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

7-2 decision for United States
majority opinion by John H. Clarke

The convictions under the Espionage Act satisfied the "clear and present danger" test.

The Court held that in calling for a general strike and the curtailment of munitions production, the leaflets violated the Espionage Act. Congress' determination that all such propaganda posed a danger to the war effort was sufficient to meet the standard set in Schenck v. United States for prosecuting attempted crimes. As in Schenck, the Court emphasized that protections on speech are lower during wartime.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes argued that the First Amendment protects the right to dissent from the government's viewpoints and objectives. Protections on speech, he continued, should not be curtailed unless there is a present danger of immediate evil, or the defendant intends to create such a danger. The evidence in this case consisted of two leaflets, which he concluded did not meet the "clear and present danger" test.

Cite this page

"Abrams v. United States." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/250us616. Accessed 29 Mar. 2021.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 1918, the United States participated in a military operation on Russian soil against Germany after the Russian Revolution overthrew the tsarist regime. Russian immigrants in the US circulated literature calling for a general strike in ammunition plants to undermine the US war effort.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Facts of the case

Jacob Frohwerk circulated a German-language newspaper called the Missouri Staats Zeitung, which published articles criticizing the US involvement in World War I. Frohwerk was charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917 because the government believed he sought to cause disloyalty and refusal of duty. A trial court found Frohwerk guilty and sentenced him to a fine and imprisonment. On appeal, Frohwerk challenged the statute under the First Amendment.

Question

Did Frohwerk's conviction under the Espionage Act of 1917 violate his right to free speech under the First Amendment?

Conclusion

In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Court concluded that Frohwerk's conviction was valid. The Court reasoned that the federal government has a valid interest in protecting the recruitment of members of the armed forces, and that in publishing the articles, Frohwerk engaged in a conspiracy to disrupt such recruitment. The Court dismissed the argument that Frohwerk never intended to obstruct recruitment, noting that "conspiracy to obstruct recruiting would be criminal even if no means were agreed upon specifically by which to accomplish the intent." Of note, the Court reasserted its conclusion in Schenck v. United States (1919) that the First Amendment does not "give immunity for every possible use of language."

Cite this page

"Frohwerk v. United States." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us204. Accessed 28 Mar. 2021.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A case in which the Court held that the conviction of a defendant for publishing articles criticizing the US involvement in World War I under the Espionage Act of 1917 does not violate the publisher's free speech rights under the First Amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kF_Nwa1lLxqNSrErGg7C1Zuotmp1mrbfDKexHe1kXYQ/edit?usp=sharing

# data[].attributes.headline
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

# data[].attributes.subject
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette