The Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1917 called for the suppression of speech that criticized the war effort during World War I. Americas were imprisoned when accused and convicted of speaking out against the war.

1. What arguments could be made to support such a law?

2. What arguments could be made against such a law?

The Espionage Act was enacted in 1917 (during WWI) aiming to block any interference with military operations or recruitment. According to this piece of legislation, any action which posed a "clear and present danger" would be considered a a criminal offense. The clear and present danger clause was therefore the condition that needed to be fulfilled in order to qualify as one of the very exceptional cases in which the rights provided by the First Amendment could be limited. The Sedition Act was enacted in 1918 and expanded the Espionage Act, including a broader variety of offenses.

The reason to defend these regulations would be that national security is the most important objective and therefore anybody which puts that at risk should be punished.

On other hand, detractors would state that placing limits on the basic civil rights, such as the freedom of speech contradicts the universal provision of those rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.

In support: In a time of war dissenters could weaken the war effort. Speech that might hurt other Americans is not protected by the First Amendment

Against: The first Amendment should protect even unpopular speech. Speaking out against a war doesn't endanger other Americans. In a democracy people should be free to disagree with the government.