Source: Free Speech for Radicals
Source type: book
Document type: book chapter
Document title: “On Suppressing the Advocacy of Crime” [chapter 3]
Author(s): Schroeder, Theodore
Edition: Enlarged Edition
Publisher: Hillacre Bookhouse
Place of publication: Riverside, Connecticut
Year of publication: 1916
Pagination: 23-36 (excerpt below includes only pages 27-28)
|Schroeder, Theodore. “On Suppressing the Advocacy of Crime” [chapter 3]. Free Speech for Radicals. Enlarged ed. Riverside: Hillacre Bookhouse, 1916: pp. 23-36.|
|excerpt of chapter|
|freedom of speech; anarchism (government response: criticism); anarchism (laws against); freedom of speech (restrictions on).|
|Leon Czolgosz; William McKinley.|
“From the stenographic report of a lecture” (p. 23).
From title page: Published for the Free Speech League.
From title page: By Theodore Schroeder, Attorney for the Free Speech League; Author, “Obcene” [sic] Literature and Constitutional Law; Compiler, Free Press Anthology, Etc.
On Suppressing the Advocacy of Crime [excerpt]
After the assassination of President
McKinley  a newspaper reporter attempted
to get an interview with a United States Senator, who had had some personal
differences with the President. The Senator declined to be interviewed saying
that because of his past personal differences he would have nothing to say.
For exercising his freedom of speech by simply announcing that he had nothing
to say, a large number of United States Senators, I think it was a majority,
sent telegrams to a Southern paper, declaring their willingness to vote for
his expulsion from the United States Senate. Here there was not even the excuse
that the Senator’s offending silence promoted crime, and it is a most glaring
illustration of the instability of freedom, even with the most dignified, and,
presumably, the most enlightened body of men that can be gathered in the United
States. It is sad to contemplate how slender is the thread whose severance terminates
Under the influence of that same unreason and epidemic of hysteria, ingeniously developed to the highest pitch of excitement by our conscienceless press, came into existence that multiplicity of state and national laws, directed against the mere abstract opinions entertained by people calling themselves Anarchists. All this came in spite of the fact that there was no evidence whatever that Czolgosz was an Anarchist. However, the word Anarchist was an effective epithet, and, hereafter all those to whom it could be even metaphorically applied must be denied their freedom of speech and of press, no matter how harmless or justifiable might be their political creed.