[chanting] they raise their voices, placards, and march against the government. Most dissenters of the vietnam war can find themselves at this protest activity. Some go farther, burning Selective Service cards. Flying viet cong batters and burning the american flag. During march demonstrations, hundreds of protesters are sometimes arrested. Which activities fall under the bounds of lawful, justified dissent . Which go beyond the limits to become lawless and perhaps rebellious . Scope. The wide world of people and events. Partweek, the vietnam war, 107. How much dissent . Correspondentabc john scali. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] day goes by without a new report of another demonstration or protest against the vietnam war. Hardly a day passes when those who support the war dont wonder how much dissent is too much. Askedwho oppose it themselves how far can they go in expressing this opposition. The question how much dissent is as old as socrates and his assertion of the priority of individual conscience over the laws of the state. It is as familiar as the opinion of Oliver Wendell holmes, that the right of free speech does not give one the right to shout a false warning of fire in a crowded theater. It is as current as the controversy over general hershey or the indictments of dr. Half or reverend coffin. We will address this question this week. Scali will return with our story when abc scope continues in just one minute. Outside the Justice Department in washington on october 20, dr. Benjamin spock and reverend William Sloane hoffman coughlan turned in cards. Raphic reverend coffin collected some cards and brought them to the Justice Department themselves. Charged coughlan, spock, and three others with conspiring to counsel and aid young men to evade the draft. Justice Department Spokesman say the indictments do not foreshadow a general crackdown on dissenters, but a crackdown to we welcome the indictments. What we want to do is try to demonstrate to the country that many aspects of the war, of the draft law, are unconstitutional. Im disturbed to get letters of people saying how can you, a christian minister, opposed the law of the land . These people aem to forget that from religious perspective, one never surrenders one conscience to the state. It is through the entire bible. We must obey god rather than men. Ones conscience is never surrendered. Our puritan forefathers came to this country because they were dedicated to that notion. Jesus was officially tagged with treason. He disobeyed the civil law and the holy law. Peter and paul worked in and out of jail all the time. From a religious point of view, three things about law. One, it is good. Without it, creation would be chaos. Two, laws, like individuals, can fall. And therefore, that 3, 1 must always strive to see that the law reflects and does not reject ones best notions of justice. It means one is always trying to improve the law, which means that one must have respect for what is legal what is more concerned with what is right. It is important to remember this is not to advocate anarchy or revolution. If we are willing to accept the legal punishment, then we are in fact supporting and not subverting the legal order. Somebody who is engaged in civil disobedience is automatically trying to destroy the legal order. You are a revolutionary, adams, jefferson, and others, he is out to destroy the whole order. Im not as radical as jefferson. Captain, airborne world i volunteered in the army, then three years in the Central Intelligence agency. Nothing under top secret for more than three years. I thought of how best to serve my country. I do not think one serves one ones country by asking good men to die in a bad cause. How are the nation and government tolerating vietnam dissenters compared to the situation in past wars . We talked to the head of the organization dedicated to protecting the rights of the dissenters. John pemberton of the American Civil Liberties union. I think it is more than any predecessor war. This does not mean that the climate is not showing some increasing hostility to dissent. I think what is unique about is a verys that it unpopular war, perhaps the most unpopular in recent history. The expressions of dissent on the part of government officials has tended to create an area in which government is hard to tolerate dissent. Melvyn wolf, legal director of the American Civil Liberties union. Had asked me how the government was behaving itself in the face of dissent, if you ask me that two weeks ago, i would have said that with a certain notorious exception, general hershey, for example, and his punitive selfservice Selective Service policy the government was behaving itself quite well. The indictments of dr. Spock and reverend coffin and the other three individuals marks off a critical change of behavior by the government. Seemingly have lost their cool. They seem to have been reached , affected andsm injured by it, which is the purpose of criticism of governmental actions in a free society. Speech, not effective that it merely doesnt serve its full purpose. Senator galeasked mcgee, a strong administrative support are on vietnam, his views on one of the general sessions raised. Do americans who believe that war is immoral have a right to preach resistance against the draft . I think the question of morality in this war has to accommodate itself to the concept of majority rule in a democracy. Place, for example, for conscientious objectors, and a place for those who are immediately subject to draft. They can make peace with their conscience, and in terms of a man of god, to place his judgment of morality above and beyond that of the majority, i bitd think that would be a presumptuous. Im afraid of the tendency on the part of so many who would inject morality is to try to get the lord on their side or pretend that they have a monopoly on what the lord would do in vietnam. I would hope they would remember a little retreat on that line that Abraham Lincoln resorted to when he said all i hope is im on the lords side. Dont want to comment on the guilt or innocence of anyone, because they have a right to be heard in court. But generally, people who do such advocating out to be dealt stuckand ought to be under a jail. Im not talking about these particular cases as i dont know the facts involved, but anyone who as a matter of fact advocates the burning of draft cards, advocates and conspires to advocate the disobedience of the law, they ought to be punished. Part of ther country have heard these pseudointellectuals on College Campuses always say you southern folks ought to obey the law. We do, whether we like it or not. Is advocatingent the disobedience of unjust laws. Thats why we had anarchy conditions in our country. Fieldid nick reynolds, secretary of the war resisters league, a pacifist group. This might sound oldfashioned i think that dr. Spock was greatly honored by the indictment, and i would be in or mislead honored to be among those indictments. Think it is an honor to be indicted for the defense of the republic and the nation. Against the president , who has usurped power, who has involved us in war without a declaration of war, and theeneral luis hershey, head of Selective Service, is the storm center of a second controversy involving this involving dissenters of the grant of the draft. Who take actions interfering with Selective Service procedures. When these students staged a sit in at the draft board in ann arbor, michigan in october 1965, the general ordered some of them conducted. The courts have held the action unconstitutional, but that has not changed his tactics. He explained his position to abcs dan hackel. We havef the problems, individuals, not only students, but fathers, apprentices, farmers, that were being deferred, and at the same time, were attempting to interfere, with force or violence or threat, with the operations system. Its a little awkward when you deferred people who violate the law. Is that why they were deferred . They were deferred, as, for instance, a student. Whether he was using it as a crucial study in some of his laboratory work, to go out and disobey the law, or if he is moonlighting to do things immaterial, because it is inconsistent with the federal government differing somebody in National Interest for him to be attacking the National Interest by doing acts which are violations of the law. I want to make it clear that a deferment is not anything but a civil action. Arst of all, you dont get deferment unless someone gives it to you. The only people who can give it to you are the local board. The local board has a responsibility to see that the person who got the deferment lives up to the implied contract. You cant certainly differ anybody unless you expect them to obey the laws that they are being deferred under. Of your critics say you are stifling dissent in this country. Dissent to gets people to obey the laws, i am guilty. Consent toifling make a person do what they are , and what the Congress Says they have to do, if that is dissent, i would have to plead guilty. Substituting the Selective Service boards for the courts powers to determine where crimes have been committed. This is nonsense. The bodies in the United States which can determine when crimes are committed are the courts. Those who criticize general hershey, i dont put stock in anything they say. They are some who are easily advocating the victory of the communists. Many of them are advocating the rights to make speeches in favor of the communists under the guise of Academic Freedom. American,y this great patriotic american, if i had to resolve doubts, they would be resolved in favor of general hershey and not of this liberal, left wing pseudo craft i think general hershey ought to be retired. I think the moment you inject punitive aspects to Selective Service, it becomes a selfdefeating operation. I dont believe the general has the right to inject that. I dont believe it ought to be the basis of any Selective Service system, that it becomes a kind of penal service, as a punishment for some law you may have broken. Will hear the views of president johnson and some of his critics when abc scope continues in one minute. Of the largest peace demonstrations in history was held last october in washington. More than 50,000 people took part, and thousands of them marched on them marched on the pentagon to protest the war. A leader was jerry rubin, a radical activist of the socalled new left. We recently asked him his view on the limits of dissent. Lyndon johnson is a common murderer and he should be arrested for murder. There are no limits to dissent. I think the and that the enemies women whose children were burned by napalm, drop by american claims in the sky, peacefule anger that protest reflects. You got to go to the streets and use the tactics of destruction. The American People are drunk with apathy. They dont care. Is in the situation that germany was in the 40s, committing mass murder. We are lawless. The only people who can save the country are the people who recognize this and are willing to risk their lives to go out in the streets and stop this country from the murder. Critics ofe moderate vietnam policy, like senator advocateseld, charged of the war for failing to distinguish between responsible and irresponsible dissent. There is a tendency to treat the impression that if you are not for lbj on one hand, you must be for ho chi minh on the other hand. This polarization, simplistic approach, that you are either for us or against us as americans, you either lineup with the president and his , this or the communists is very dangerous. There is responsible dissent that attempts to point out the weaknesses and fallacies of the present policy and offer alternatives. They are different and should be differentiated from those that are burning the flag, burning the draft cards, creating rightist situations creating riotous situations. You think president johnson himself has been guilty of some of this and tolerance . I think so. I think hes been talking out of both sides of his mouth. He spoken in terms of there is a right to dissent, but by the same token, he has given the definite impression through language and emotions that if you do not support his policy, it is costing lives in vietnam, it is destroying the morale of our boys in vietnam. It is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. This contradicts his previous statement that there is a role for dissent. By these words and actions, he is negating the possibility of dissent that it is almost destroying dissent. Johnson was asked about this kind of criticism at his News Conference november 17. No, i havent called anyone unpatriotic. I havent said anything that would indicate that. I think the i do think that some people are irresponsible and make untrue statements and ought to be cautious and careful when they are dealing with the problem involving the man at the front. There is a great deal of difference between criticism and responsible dissent, all of which we insist on and protect. Orrmtrooper bullying throwing yourself down the road and smashing windows and every time a person attempts to speak to try to ground them out we believe very strongly and preserving the right to differ in this country and to dissent. Good job ofe a anything since ive been president , it is to ensure there are plenty of dissenters. [laughter] but im trying to preserve my to give the other side i dont think one side ought to dominate the whole picture so what i would say is let us realize that we are in the midst of a war. Lets realize that 500,000 about fellows out there to bring their lives to win that war, lets ask ourselves what it is we can do to help. If you think you can do you can make a contribution to helping them by expressing your opinion and dissenting, then do it. But then if the secretary of state starts to explain his viewpoint, dont send out instructions all over the country and say when he starts to talk, wrap your feet. Peoples intentions are good. We dont question their motives, never said they were unpatriotic, even though theyve said some ugly things about us. People who live in glass houses shouldnt be too anxious to throw stones. Governor wallace gave his views on the limitations of dissent. Students to raise money, blood, and clothes for the viet cong communists, sending them overseas, and those who speak and call for the victory of communists under the name of Academic Freedom are aiding and abetting the enemy in hanoi and moscow. The first thing i would do if our president does have my attorney general drag some of these bearded professors before a grand jury, indict them, and send them to the penitentiary because they are traitors. [applause] im not talking about honest dissent. Many good people in this audience probably, and throughout the country, honestly dissent about vietnam because you love our country, and you think we shouldnt be there because it is not in our interest. Congress feelf the same way. But there is a difference anween honest dissent and over active treason and aid and comfort to the enemy. How has the Supreme Court ruled . Bob clark talked to an authority on the First Amendment, yeah Law School ProfessorThomas Thomas emerson. The right to protest the actions of the government, including the draft . It rose out of the first world war. The leading case was that shank case. He was the general secretary of and he issued a pamphlet which denounced conscription, as and called it at the time, urged people to assert their rights in opposition to the draft. Obstructingted for recruitment in the armed. Ervices, and was convicted on appeal, the Supreme Courts decision was written by Justice Holmes. He started off by saying that the First Amendment could not possibly protect all speech, that it would not protect a person falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater, and therefore there must be some limitation. He advised the limitation of the clear and present danger test. And he upheld the conviction. Recentabout the more court cases directly involving the vietnam war . Only one that directly involves the vietnam war, the case of julian bond. Refused ad had been seat in the Georgia Legislature because of certain statements he and theendorsed, question was whether or not those statements were protected under the First Amendment. The main statement was one issued by in which they had said we are in sympathy with and countrythe men in this who are unwilling to respond to the military draft. That thate court held statement was protected by the First Amendment, and i would say that is the basis for my ,uggestion that the shank case would not be followed today. The court also held that the statement did not violate the Selective Service act, that it was too ambiguous, not specific enough. Question then, poses a that would be before the court in some cases. It may reach them later. John scali will return with a final comment and just one minute. That we haveose heard on this program, from governor wallace on one end to jerry rubin on the other, agrees on the value and importance of dissent. Each has his own idea of where the line should be drawn between what is permissible and what is not. Risk of adding still one more opinion, let me sum up by telling you what i think. I think, first, we should not only tolerate but listen to the voices of dissent. Much of the present outcry against the vietnam war comes from the very young were genuinely troubled, caught between the demands of society and the dictates of their individual conscience. If they believe the vietnam war is illegal and immoral, they have a right to protest, to seek to change that policy, provided they stay within the Legal Framework of the society whose comforts and protection they otherwise accept. But when they resort to over acts such as blocking induction centers, collecting draft cards, or refusing to be drafted, they are on dangerous grounds. The rights ofting others, and challenging the very existence of an orderly society. If you feel so strongly in the rightness of your cause that you are ready to pay the penalty the law imposes if convicted, then you deserve some sympathy and respect. What if you resort to violence and illegal acts and seek to escape the consequences, you are saying our society isnt worth saving, and you are contributing to anarchy. The link Justice Holmes once defined the limits of dissent by declaring my right to waive my arm ends where your nose begins. To me, that means you can say what you please, but doing what you please is Something Else again. This is john scali in washington. This has been a d. C. Scope, the vietnam war part 117. Us again a d. C. Scope will present a program examining the fate of the Republican Party 10 months before the election. This has been a presentation of abc news. This weekend on American History tv on cspan3. Tonight at eight p. M. Eastern, sanersity of california diego professor luis alvarez on the zoot suit riots. How the suits were used to challenge conventional gender and racial identities. Suitersanamerican zoot in particular were viewed as public enemies. If not number one, the number behind1b japaneseamericans. They were seen as unamerican. Sunday at 6 p. M. On american artifacts, the green hill plantation. This site, green hill plantation, has the original slaveowners here very active in the slave trade. One of the things he decided to put in his yard is a slave Auction Block and auctioneer stand. Feel then definitely power of this place. I think that Auction Block standing where it is is part of why this is so powerful. It would have been the last place men, women, and children would have been with their families. After this place, they would have been scattered across the United States. This is kind of ground zero for that experience. At 8 00, an interview with historian William Seale on the stonemasons who built the outer walls of the white house. Door, whichhe front is carved with lilies and flowers and ribbons and acorns, everything you can think of. Very watch. Probably the finest example of in america for a hundred years. American history tv, all weekend every weekend, only on cspan3. Judge learned hand served on of appeals from 1954 to 1961, serving as chief judge in the final years. Thomas merrill talked about his interpretation of statutory law, laws generated by a legislative body. Ginsburg delivers opening remarks. This 90 minute event from new york city was part of the u. S. Second Circuit Court of appeals 125th anniversary please remained standing as the deputy Circuit Court leads us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america into the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. You may be seated. Good afternoon. I am chief judge of the u. S. Court of appeals for the second circuit. With his today along with the judges of the court of appeals are three distinguished justices of the Supreme Court. Our cherished circuit Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg, our beloved colleague, former colleague, Justice Sonia sotomayor who form many years was a member of this court