Enactment of the Sedition
Enactment of the Sedition Act in 1798 invoked a heated debate between Federalist and Republican state legislatures concerning the First Amendment. The law-imposed fines and imprisonment terms to those who publish or express any malicious, scandalous, and false writing against the president or Congress. The minority Republicans argued that the sedition law violated the First Amendment by restricting freedom of the press. Vermont Republican congressmen Matthew Lyon was the first person to be tried under the Sedition Act in October 1798. The grand jury indicted the congressman for authoring letters in Republican newspapers that depicted “intent and design” of defaming the government of President John Adams. Although Lyon recused himself by stating that the Sedition Act was unconstitutional, he was fined $1,000 and sentenced to four months in prison. Widespread anger over the Sedition Act led to Jefferson’s victory over Adams in the 1800 presidential election. The Sedition Act expired on March 3, 1801.
The second example of the Schenck v. United legal case provoked a heated debate concerning the federal government’s move to curtail freedom of speech as outlined by the First Amendment. During World War I, Charles Schenck opposed the implementation of the military draft. To achieve his objective, Schenck published and distributed over 15,000 leaflets calling for resistance for those drafted in the military services. He was arrested for violating the Espionage Act. His counsel argued that the Espionage Act was unconstitutional, and Schenck was exercising his freedom of speech under the First Amendment. However, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling which upheld Schenck’s conviction and the Espionage Act. The court argued that the protection of freedom of speech under the First Amendment could be restricted if the words printed or spoken to society presents a present and clear danger of significant evil.
Another example illustrating the debate over the First Amendment is when President Nixon’s administration sought to prevent Washington Post and New York Times from publishing classified materials belonging to the Defense Department. Daniel Ellsberg, a U.S. military analyst, leaked the classified “top-secret” volumes of documents to a New York Times reporter, who, in return, began to publish the articles in the print media. The federal government claimed that publishing the leaked articles would cause irreparable injury to the interests of the defense of the U.S. After the Attorney General William Rehnquist asked the press to cease any further publication of the classified information, they refused leading to the government seeking an injunction at the District Court for the District of Columbia and an appeal at the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court. The majority ruling at the Supreme Court stated that the First Amendment abolished the government’s power to censor the press and protect the press to ensure that it fulfills its responsibility of baring government secrets and informing the public. However, the dissenting opinions faulted the New York Times for publishing classified “national security” information using the framework of free and unfettered press guaranteed by the First Amendment.