Signum temporum

I am considering a moral mean in USA moral and political sign of a behavior that has transgressed the constitution. The Supreme Court of USA has trailed that a citizen has made crime to distribution of leaflets against the send of troops against Bolshevik revolution to Russia by President Wilson, the told of crime says: “JACOB ABRAMS was arrested in New York City on August 23, 1918. He and several friends had written, printed, and distributed copies of a leaflet that severely criticized President Woodrow Wilson and the U.S. government. The leaflet opposed President Wilson’s decision to send a small U.S. military force to Russia during the civil war that followed the communist revolution of 1917. Abrams and his friends were arrested for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. These laws made it a crime to write and publish disloyal or profane statements that were intended to interfere with production of goods necessary to the defense ofthe United States during wartime. However, the 1st Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law. . .abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Opinion of the Court Justice John H. Clarke, writing for the Court, decided against Abrams’s claims that his 1st Amendment rights were violated. Clarke based his decision on the “clear and present danger” and “bad tendency” tests stated… According to these two tests, which Holmes used interchangeably in Schenck, free speech and press could be limited if they were intended to cause an illegal action or if they threatened national security. Justice Holmes denied that Abrams’s actions and intentions represented a danger sufficient to justify limitation of his freedom of expression.”. The citizen Abrams was right, because the constitution of USA has said that: “First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”, thereupon  action of Supreme court is illegal, or it is other? Certainly it is other, and explication of cause is in same trial: “…an illegal action or if they threatened national security”, a leaflet certainly could not subvert a nation, but we must consider times, this is 1919, and then the State was important and relevant to every citizen therefore we can sight a deeper mean, what? The State also in nation less statist on the word transgressed the first amendment of constitution because the security of nation has menaced, by a leaflet, or by opinion that this leaflet was discussing? Certainly by ideas, but this reaction means two consideration very meaningful first is the weakness of govern of USA and second that other ideas no were accepted, neither to propaganda; this is a authoritarianism, but no formal or to laws thereupon no explicit but alone moral, therefore unofficial, coward.

Alessandro Lusana