Silencing distasteful speech that aids and abets the enemy is both legal and needed. Under the Sedition Acts of 1918 silencing critics of the US intervention in WW1 was found legal under Abrams v. United States, and although Brandenburg v. Ohio could be construed against the Abrams case, the Brandenburg case only applied to speech inciting violence, not wartime speech. In the case that the the Supreme Court does not find Abram applicable anymore the President simply has to invoke the "Suspension Clause" of the constitution which removes the Writ of Habeas Corpus and allows imprisonment of anyone for the duration the suspension occurs. Lincoln invoked the Suspension Clause during the Civil War to silence Confederate separatists in Maryland and Missouri thus allowing the Union forces freedom from such distasteful speech. So yes I believe for the stability and the well being of the public at large freedom of speech should be curtailed in times of war.
Freedom of Speech is one of the fundamentally rights guarantee by the US Constitution. This guarantee means that government cannot censor or limit a person's speech simply because the topic of the speech in unpopular or critical of the government. So no one's comments critical of the war or the government's conduct should be limited.
I believe that my mom should have the right to freedom of speech juts because shes black it doesn't mean she does not have rights P.S. My name is Black Jesus and i live in Afganistan i am 69 years old and i like cheese lol im sorry that my english is very bad but im just a kid from Africa.
First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. [Citations.] To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship. The essence of this forbidden censorship is content control. Any restriction on expressive activity because of its content would completely undercut the 'profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.
I think as long as its non violent the methods are fine. The issues that come from violent protests far
outweigh the ability to have free speech. I think the people have a right to state, what they think their government is doing wrong. The Vietnam War is a perfect example of this.
If you start putting limits of freedom, then freedom does not exist. Above all, being an American means being able to voice your disagreement with the government. A person stating they don't believe in a war is not hurting anyone else and that right should not be infringed under any circumstance.
I think as long as its non violent the methods are fine. The issues that come from violent protests far outweigh the ability to have free speech. I think the people have a right to state, what they think their government is doing wrong. The Vietnam War is a perfect example of this.