OGT Benchmark: Explain how individual rights are relative, not absolute, and describe the balance between individual rights, the rights of others, and the common good.. The Rights of U.S. Citizens Times When Individual Rights Have Been Restricted

I. The Rights of U.S. Citizens Bill of Rights 1st amendment freedom of religion, speech, and the press 2nd amendment right of peaceful assembly and petition 4th amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure 5th amendment double jeopardy, right to refuse to testify against oneself, protection against being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law

I. The Rights of U.S. Citizens Bill of Rights 6th amendment right to speedy, public trial by an impartial jury. Right to confront witness, right to subpoena witnesses, right to have an attorney 7th amendment Right to a jury trial in a civil suit 8th amendment Protection against excessive bail or fines, protection against cruel and unusual punishment

A. Restrictions on Rights on U.S. Citizens rights are NOT ABSOLUTE examples a. religion: can’t have human sacrifice b. speech: can’t threaten others Must be balance between individual rights, the rights of others, and the common good criteria used to determine limits on individual rights: a. clear and present danger b. compelling government interest c. libel d. national security e. public safety f. equal opportunity

II. Times When Individual Rights Have Been Restricted There have been many times in U.S. history when individual rights have been restricted

A. WWI and the Standard of Clear and Present Danger 1. outlawed interference with the draft 2. punishment: 20 years in prison ad $10,000 fine 3. overall, 2000 convicted

Schenck v. United States 1. Charles Schenck, member of the Socialist Party 2. sent 15,000 flyers to people trying to get them to refuse the draft 3. In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes established “clear and present danger” rule 4. speech is not absolute 5. can be restricted if there is a clear and present danger of its producing harm to others

Debs v. the United States 1918, Eugene V. Debs, a Socialist labor leader Speech in Canton, Ohio “Socialism is the answer. I might not be able to say all that I think ,but you need to know that you are fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder.” he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to 10 years in prison he broke “clear and present danger” rule

B. Conscientious Objectors 1. you do not have to fight in combat if religion strictly forbids it (church HAD to show a history of being against war) 2. must be approved by the draft board 3. many were forced to be drafted, then court-martialed when they refused 4. those who did get out--they would have to do alternative service 5. treatment of conscientious objectors a. those who refused alternative service were treated harshly (prison and public humiliation) 6. Rights were taken away from conscientious objectors because of clear and present danger and national security

C. Compelling Government Interest 1. Ex: protecting children from “indecent” content on TV 2. Communications Decency Act: restrictions on the Internet. Supreme Court overturned this! 3. Bakke vs. California (1978) and Grutter vs. Bollinger (2003) The compelling government interest: using race as a factor of accepting students into colleges Bakke case: Race used as an admissions criteria (affirmative action Grutter: white woman who wanted to get into U. of Michigan Law School challenged this. She won in district court, but Supreme Court upheld Bakke decision that race can be used as an admissions criteria

D. Libel 1. Restriction of freedom of speech: can’t defame someone’s reputation by speaking lies 2. only living people 3. true statements are never considered libel Ex: newspaper can print a restaurant’s health code violations

E. National Security and the Red Scare 1st Red Scare (1917 to 1920): Fear of immigrants, of Communism because of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, and of foreigners Ex: Sacco and Venzetti, A. Mitchell Palmer 2nd Red Scare (1948-1956): Fear of Communism, Cold War Ex: Joseph McCarthy

1. OGT Multiple Choice To silence critics during World War I, the government used which of the following criteria for limiting individual rights? A. compelling government interest B. clear and present danger C. libel D. equal opportunity

2. OGT Multiple Choice Which Supreme Court case used the compelling government interest criterion? A. Schneck vs. United States B. Debs v. United States C. Grutter v. Bollinger D. Abrams v. United States

3. OGT Multiple Choice Laws that restrict toxic emissions from factory smokestacks are an example of which of the following criteria for limiting rights? A. national security B. libel C. public safety D. equal opportunity

4. OGT Multiple Choice What tactic did both A. Mitchell Palmer and Joseph McCarthy use to gain support for their actions? A. They sponsored public forms to debate communism B. They encouraged free expression of communistic ideas C. They organized protest rallies to raise pubic awareness D. They manipulated public fear of communism

5. OGT Multiple Choice In a letter to the editor of a local paper, a citizen made knowingly false statements about a neighbor in order to cause the neighbor public embarrassment. This is an example of A. clear and present danger B. libel C. due process D. compelling interest

OGT Extended Response In 1918, Eugene V. Debs, a leader of the American Socialist Party, gave an antiwar speech in Canton, Ohio. In the speech, Debs supported other Socialist leader who has already been arrested for their opposition to the draft. ebs said, “You have your lives to lose…You need to know that you are fit for soething better than slavery and cannon fodder.” Because of this speech, Debs was arrested, tried, and convicted for violating the Sedition Act (1918), which was an amendment to the Espionage Act. The Sedition Act prohibited any speech that interfered with the military draft. Do you think Debs’ speech constituted a clear and present danger to the laws of the United States? Why or why not? Do you agree with the Court’s decision in this case? Why or why not?