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.

Throughout their history, Americans have wrestled with that tension between liberty and order. And, at times of national danger, the U.S. has restricted basic freedoms to preserve order. We know about restrictions of freedoms of speech and the press under Presidents Adams and Wilson; the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II; the systematic silencing of criticism during the McCarthy era of the 1950’s. There are plenty of examples, and both Republican and Democratic administrations to hold responsible. Indeed, the most extensive infringement on civil liberties in American history occurred under the direction of President Abraham Lincoln.
It is understandable then that at such moments many of us believe that liberty must give way to the need for order. In 1919, writing in Schenck v. U.S. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., argued that when speech presented a "clear and present danger" to the safety of the nation, the government could suspend the guarantees of the first amendment. In 1951, in Dennis v. U.S. Justice William O. Douglas echoed Holmes, writing: "There comes a time when even speech loses its constitutional immunity. Speech innocuous one year may at another time fan such destructive flames that it must be halted in the interests of the safety of the Republic."

Well, first, we might remember, as Justice Douglas wrote in the Dennis case, that in a democratic society, "[F]ree speech is the rule, not the exception. [A] restraint [on such speech], to be constitutional must be based upon more than fear, on more than passionate opposition against the speech, on more than a revolted dislike for the contents." Here Douglas was again following Justice Holmes, who wrote in Abrams v. U.S. that freedom of speech permitted free trade in ideas and that "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market."

============================================================

The irony is a nation that fights for freedom all over the world, goes against its own constitution whenever its for the convenience of the government.
The closest example is the patriots act.
How a government can have the moral value to hold the freedom flag all over the world, yet within its borders passes laws against the freedom of its own people?

It can't...And doesn't..

I don't know that it doesn't Bobby, still checkin into it, but what I'm hearin so far ain't good.

google patriot act of 2001

for the written version of the act

and yes it is blatantly a loss of freedoms

if they want it to be

I didn't know the US was fighting for freedom. I thought it was fighting for its own interests, and using 'freedom' as a justification.

wont argue about that mass

pretty much on the mark i would say

You forgot the internment of Italian and German-Americans during WW2 which happened on the same scale and seems to be white-washed (I guess because whites don't make for very good oppressed minorities).

And the McCarthy thing has been blown way out of proportion. We now know there actually were more reds in high places than even Joe McCarthy was calling out. I think it was the head of our war department in WW2 that was a self-admitted red (had written articles for an openly communist periodical). If you want I'll look it up for you in a book of mine and post the specifics.

I'm glad you covered our so-called greatest president Lincoln though. It's almost funny if it weren't so sick, exponentionally more dissenters were imprisoned by Lincoln than by Mussolini. Partly due to the fact that Mussolini actually had to try people.

Oh and I'm with you on the patriot act and foreign intervention (which Washington tried to warn us against).