WHERE FREE SPEECH ENDS

(from Judge Medina's charge to the jury) ". . .These defendants had the right to advocate by peace ful and lawful means any and all changes in the laws and in the Constitution; they had the right to criticize the President of the United States and the Congress; they had the right to assert that World War II, prior to the invasion of Russia by Germany, was an unjust war, an imperialist war and that upon such invasion it became a just war worthy of all material and moral support ; and they had the right publicly to express these views orally and in writing. They had the right thus to assert that the Government was at all times exploiting the poor and worthy workers for the benefit of the trusts and monopolies.

"They had a right thus to assert that what they call the democracy of Russia is superior in all respects to American democracy. They had a right thus to assert that the Marshall Plan was a mistake, that billions of dollars should be loaned to Russia and that legislation adversely affecting Communists should not be passed. Whether you or I or anyone else likes or dislikes such or similar and analogous views ... is ... not entitled to the slightest consideration in deciding this case.

Unless a minority had a right to express and to advocate its views, the democratic process as we understand it here in America would cease to exist and those in power might remain there indefinitely and make impossible any substantial changes in our social and economic system . . .

"I charge you that if the defendants did no more than pur sue peaceful studies and discussions or teaching and advocacy in the realm of ideas you must acquit them . . . Do not be led astray by talk about thought control, or putting books on trial. No such issues are before you here. "But no one could suppose nor is it the law that any person has an absolute and unbridled right to say or to write and to publish whatever he chooses under any and all circumstances.

"Words may be the instruments by which crimes are committed, as in many familiar situations ; and it has always been recognized that the protection of other interests of society may justify reasonable restrictions upon speech in furtherance of the general welfare . . .

"You must be satisfied from the evidence, beyond a reason able doubt, that the defendants had an intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of the Government of the United States by force and violence ... as speedily as circumstances would permit it to be achieved.

"... I charge you that it is not the abstract doctrine of overthrowing or destroying organized government by unlawful means which is denounced by this law, but the teaching and advocacy of action for the accomplishment of that purpose, by language reasonably and ordinarily calculated to incite persons to such action . . .

"No such intent could be inferred from the open and above-board teaching of a course on the principles and implications of Communism in an American college or university, where everything is open to the scrutiny of parents and trustees and anyone who may be interested . . . That is why it is so impor tant for you to weigh with scrupulous care the testimony concerning secret schools, false names, devious ways, general falsification and so on, all alleged to be in the setting of a huge and well-disciplined organization, spreading to practically every state of the union and all the principal cities and industries."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.