09-14-2020, 03:12 PM
Apimenia;10718 Wrote:That argument was used to try and prevent people from criticizing the draft, and punish them for doing so. Such speech was considered "dangerous" by that particular lawyer. It says so even in your source. Facts of the case:
"During World War I, socialists Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer distributed leaflets declaring that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. The leaflets urged the public to disobey the draft, but advised only peaceful action. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. Schenck and Baer were convicted of violating this law and appealed on the grounds that the statute violated the First Amendment."
(Schenck and Baer won that appeal, by the way, and the original case was overturned.) Everyone seems to have a different opinion about what "dangerous" speech looks like. It's a subjective matter. That's why people in the U.S. are leery of hate speech laws. They are amazingly easy to abuse and leaders are human enough to do just that, if they think they can get away with it.
That being said, that's my stance IRL. Online groups are basically exclusive clubs and they should be able to ban anyone for any reason. So, regarding Lazarus and online discussion, I agree with joWhatup. It seems the passing of this law would be extraneous.
The case also contains a test used by judges called "clear and present danger". When certain forms of speech are put to this test and show that their intent is to harm individuals, then the speech in question is not protected constitutionally. The case has been used in subsequent cases to strike down a defendant's claim to protected speech. We refer to this case because it is necessary to determine what hate speech is then make a policy to enforce a punitive action against it much like they do in the US today.