OGT Benchmark: Explain how individual rights are relative, not absolute, and describe the balance between individual rights, the rights of others, and

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 witnesses, 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

1. rights are NOT ABSOLUTE2. examples

a. religion: can’t have human/animal sacrificeb. speech: can’t threaten others

3. Must be balance between individual rights, the rights of others, and the common good

4. criteria used to determine limits on individual rights:

a. clear and present dangerb. compelling government interestc. libeld. national securitye. public safetyf. 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

1. 1918, Eugene V. Debs, a Socialist labor leader2. Speech in Canton, Ohio3. “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.”

4. he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to 10 years in prison

5. he broke “clear and present danger” rule

Debs v. the United States

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

• 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

C. Compelling Government Interest

• 4. Eminent domain: citizens can be forced to sell land to the gov. so that roads can be built on that land

• *This is compelling gov. interest in providing a public service

• 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

D. Libel

• 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

E. National Security and the Red Scare

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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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 Test, 2008) During World War I, conscientious objectors to military service were often accused of disloyalty, and some conscientious objectors were sentenced to prison. However, other conscientious objectors were willing to accept noncombatant service.

• A. balance individual rights and the common good.• B. educate people about their constitutional

rights.• C. promote ethnic diversity within the military. • D. encourage people to apply for conscientious

objector status.


• (OGT Test, 2007) When the government builds interstate highways, citizens can be forced (under the principle of eminent domain) to sell private land that lies in the path of the highway. The reason for this is that the property rights of individuals are balanced by

• A. the government’s need to raise tax revenues.• B. the need to enforce laws against libel and

slander.• C. a compelling government interest in providing

public services.• D. the need to guarantee equal opportunities to

all citizens.


• (OGT Test, 2007) Freedom of assembly is guaranteed by the First Amendment, but assemblies may legally be broken up when protesters

• A. publicly oppose U.S. foreign policy.

• B. attempt to disrupt public safety. • C. express opinions that are controversial.

• D. are members of a religious organization.

9. OGT Multiple Choice• (OGT Test, 2006) In the United States, freedom of the press to report on certain matters may be restricted during wartime because

• A. reporting military secrets may threaten national security.

• B. laws against libel and slander are strictly enforced during wartime.

• C. materials used to print newspapers must be conserved during wartime.

• D. the government has a compelling interest in suppressing opposing views.


• (OGT Test, 2005) In the United States, a citizen’s exercise of speech and expression may be legally restricted when that individual

• A. condemns public institutions.• B. opposes public opinion.• C. criticizes public officials.• D. threatens public safety.


• When would the right of freedom of religion be restricted?

• A. A religious group goes door-to-door to talk about its beliefs.

• B. A televangelist asks people to send his church money.

• C. A religious cult uses animal sacrifices as part of its rituals.

• D. A group of people say they are atheist—they do not believe in God.


• (2005 Practice Test) Charles Schenck was found guilty of violating the 1917 Espionage Act by distributing leaflets through the mail urging men to resist induction under the military draft for World War I. On appeal, Schenck’s attorneys argued the distribution of the leaflets was protected by the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld his convictions. This case illustrates how individual rights can be balanced against

• A. the rights of other individuals• B. the security of the nation in a time of war• C. The opportunities for people to enlist in the military

• D. the interest of the gov. in keeping courts open to provide justice

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. Debs said, “You have your lives to lose…You need to know that you are fit for something 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?

Documents

OGT Benchmark: Explain how individual rights are relative, not absolute, and describe the balance between individual rights, the rights of others, and