DOCSLIB.ORG

Peter Galison Secrecy in Three Acts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Peter Galison Secrecy in Three Acts THE ESPIONAGE ACT: SPYING-SABOTAGING-UTTERING AT i:i8 PM ON APRIL 6, I917, THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED Stateslaunched the countryinto the great European conflict that had beenraging for almost three years: "The state of war between the United Statesand the ImperialGerman Government, which has been thrust uponthe United States, is herebyformally declared" (National Center). In June,Congress passed the EspionageAct, the firstact of the three secrecy-definingstatutes that have shaped so muchof the last hundred yearsof modern American secrecy doctrine.1 Along with the two other statutesthat followedin later decades- the AtomicEnergy Acts of 1946 and 1954, and the PatriotAct of 2001- these threeacts picked out inflectionpoints in thegreat ratcheting process that has expanded secrecyfrom the protection of troop positions and recruitmentstations throughan entirefield of the physical sciences to almostthe whole of governmentand civilsociety. Along with a surroundof orders,direc- tives,laws, and policies,these three acts ground the modernworld of nationalsecurity secrecy. Necessarilyschematic, my aim here is to followthe long-term historyof secretsover the last 100 years,using the debatesand cases thatencircled them to understandbetter the governingprinciples of whatinformation had to be hidden.What dangers did each periodiden- tifyamong that which should be secret?What were the properties and I wouldlike to thankJeanne Haffher for her exceptionally helpful research assistance and thoughtfulcomments; Robb Moss whose collaborationon our film,Secrecy, lies behindmany of the concernsexplored here; and AlexWellerstein for many fascinat- ingdiscussions surrounding his originalresearch into nuclear secrecy. social research Vol 77 : No 3 : Fall 2010 941 This content downloaded from 140.247.28.45 on Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:16:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions assumedpower of thesesecrets? What could, in the end,properly be declaredsecret? In short,I am interestedin usingthe acts to fixwhat it is thatsecrets were: a historicallychanging ontology ofsecrets from World WarI throughthe Long War (World War II throughthe ColdWar), and finallyinto the Terror Wars, our age's unboundedconflict. Thefirst of our three breakpoints, the 1917 Espionage Act, forbade justthe kind ofthing you might expect: it laid out stern punishment for anyoneconvicted of stealing secrets about the national defense in order to harmthe United States. Here are proscribedin sections1 and 2 just the kindof cloak and daggeractivities that its titlesuggested: enter- ing or flyingover forbidden sites to obtaininformation about ships, aircraft,dockyards, torpedo stations, defense works, canals, factories, camps,communications centers, or troopmovements. Punishable too wouldbe copying,taking or making sketches, photographs, documents, blueprints,code booksor modelsof defense materials for the purpose ofcausing injury to theUnited States. For mere destruction or misuse, the perpetratorcould be imprisonedfor two years and fined$10,000. Asthe misdirection of, say, a secretphotograph moved toward a foreign recipient,the consequencesbecame graver.Worst of all would be deliberatelyhanding such items in wartimeto enemyagents - a crime punishableby death (Espionage Act of 1917; Sedition Act of 1918). To keep the secretsof the Armyand Navysafe fromsnoops, Congressvested in the presidentthe power to designateany site a prohibitedplace. Other titles within the EspionageAct addressedthe dangerof sabotage- settingfire, for example, to a munitionsfactory, or plantingbombs on ships. Where an enemywas illicitlyobserv- ing,destruction could not be farbehind. More surprising and fateful forordinary citizens was thatthe EspionageAct went on, in section 3, to addressutterances - the kindof speechor writtenact thatmight obstructrecruitment, hamper the successof military force, or, in time ofwar, precipitate insubordination, mutiny, disloyalty, or dereliction ofduty. The moveto censormet resistance. President Woodrow Wilson himselfobjected in a letterto ArthurBrisbane, the NewYork newspa- pereditor on April25, 1917that 942 social research This content downloaded from 140.247.28.45 on Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:16:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions I sincerelyappreciate the franknessof your interesting letterof Apriltwentieth with referenceto the so-called Espionage Bill now awaitingaction of the Congress.I approveof thislegislation but I need not assureyou and thoseinterested in it that,whatever action the Congress maydecide upon, so faras I am personallyconcerned, I shallnot expect or permitany part of this law to applyto me or anyof my official acts, or in anyway to be used as a shieldagainst criticism. I can imagineno greaterdisservice to thecountry than to establisha systemof censorship that would denyto the people of a freerepublic like our own theirindisputable right to criticisetheir own publicoffi- cials.While exercising the great powers of the office I hold, I wouldregret in a crisislike the one throughwhich we are now passingto lose thebenefit of patriotic and intelligent criticism. In these tryingtimes one can feel certainonly of his motives,which he muststrive to purgeof selfishnessof everykind, and awaitwith patience for the judgment of a calmerday to vindicatethe wisdom of the course he has triedconscientiously to follow(Woodrow Wilson 1917). Whatkind of utterances were actually prosecuted? Ves Hall was a rancherfrom Rosebud Country, Montana. In January 1918, the prosecu- tor,Assistant District Attorney Homer G. Murphyhauled him before federaldistrict Judge George M. Bourquin,charging him withviolat- ing the EspionageAct: interfering with military operations, blocking recruitment,aiding the enemy. From the court proceedings: "At diverse timesin thepresence of sundry persons, some of whom had registered forthe draft,[Hall] declared that he wouldflee to avoidgoing to war, thatGermany would whip the UnitedStates, and he hoped so, that the Presidentwas a Wall Streettool, using the UnitedStates forces in thewar because he was a Britishtool, that Wilson was the crookedest [censored]-everPresident; that he was the richestman in the United Secrecy in Three Acts 943 This content downloaded from 140.247.28.45 on Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:16:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions States."Murphy went after the ranchertooth and nail (Nelles1918: 6; Gutfield1968: 168). In his prosecution,Murphy had the fullbacking of the press, whichwas ownedby the big miningcompanies. Federal District Court JudgeGeorge M. Bourquinshrugged off the pressurefrom both the extractionindustry and fromthe Justice Department itself - refusing to be shovedinto convicting war-resisting "slackers." In the Hall case, Bourquinfound that the loud-mouthedfellow had, in fact,said the thingsof which he was accused,but had done so in a villagewith a popu- lationof 60, 60 milesfrom the railway and thousandsof miles from the frontlinesof the armiesand navieshe was supposedto havewounded withwords: "The declarationswere oral,some in badinagewith the landladyin a hotelkitchen, some at a picnic,some on thestreet, some in hot and furioussaloon argument"(Nelles 1918: 6). Thanksto the nonpresencein Montanaof a greatnaval fleet or army, the judge judged thatHall did not seem to have had an intentto interferewith their operations.In Bourquin'sview, someone who shotanother with a .22 pistolfrom three miles away could hardlybe convictedof attempted murder- so it was withHall; his verbalassault was so distantfrom its targetthat there simply was no plausiblecase to be made forinterfer- encewith military operations or recruitment(Gutfield 1968: 168-169). Morelikely than Hall suddenlysinking the U.S. Navy,Bourquin added,would be Hall gettinga "brokenhead" in a barroombrawl: "The EspionageAct is not intendedto suppresscriticism or denunciation, truthor slander,oratory or gossip,argument or loose talk,"but only actual obstructionor injuryto the military.The idea, he concluded, thatslanderous or disloyaltalk could get the utterer prosecuted by the UnitedStates "is a mistake."The courtacquitted Hall, though not with- out a roarof disapprovalfrom the nationalistpress and the impeach- mentof one ofHall's character witnesses, Judge Charles L. Crum(Nelles 1918:6-8; Gutfield 1968: 163). Prosecutorswere moresuccessful in theirOctober 1917 indict- mentof 27 Socialistfarmers in HutchinsonCounty, South Dakota, with EmanuelBaltzer as the lead defendant.The accusedsent a petitionto 944 social research This content downloaded from 140.247.28.45 on Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:16:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions the sheriff,treasurer, and auditorof HutchinsonCounty and to the governorof the state,arguing that the people were againstthe draft, thatthe county quota was unfairlyfixed, and a referendumon thewar and draftwas needed.Ignoring this petition, so saidthe farmers, would "spellsure defeat for you and yourparty." The chargehere was thatthe accusedhad deliberatelyinterfered with an official'sdischarge of his dutiesto runthe draft. Judge F. A. Youmans instructed the jury to assess whetherthe defendantswere in conspiracyand whethertheir actions willfullyobstructed the draft. The jury convicted, but the district court's decisionwas reversedby a highercourt on December16, 1918 (Nelles 1918:17-18).1 On August29, 1917,in theSouthern District of Georgia, the post- mastersought to blockmailing privileges for "The Jeffersonian" under the EspionageAct. A bill came beforethe courtto removethe
Recommended publications
  • The Public Life of Secrets: Deception, Disclosure, and Discursive Framing in the Policy Process

    The Public Life of Secrets: Deception, Disclosure, and Discursive Framing in the Policy Process

    STXXXX10.1177/0735275115587388Sociological TheoryBail 587388research-article2015 Original Article Sociological Theory 2015, Vol. 33(2) 97 –124 The Public Life of Secrets: © American Sociological Association 2015 DOI: 10.1177/0735275115587388 Deception, Disclosure, and stx.sagepub.com Discursive Framing in the Policy Process Christopher A. Bail1 Abstract While secrecy enables policy makers to escape public scrutiny, leaks of classified information reveal the social construction of reality by the state. I develop a theory that explains how leaks shape the discursive frames states create to communicate the causes of social problems to the public and corresponding solutions to redress them. Synthesizing cultural sociology, symbolic interactionism, and ethnomethodology, I argue that leaks enable non– state actors to amplify contradictions between the public and secret behavior of the state. States respond by “ad hoc–ing” new frames that normalize their secret transgressions as logical extensions of other policy agendas. While these syncretic responses resolve contradictions exposed by leaks, they gradually detach discursive frames from reality and therefore increase states’ need for secrecy—as well as the probability of future leaks—in turn. I illustrate this downward spiral of deception and disclosure via a case study of the British government’s discourse about terrorism between 2000 and 2008. Keywords cultural sociology, political sociology, secrecy, symbolic interactionism, comparative- historical sociology “For in the order of things it is found that one never seeks to avoid one inconvenience without running into another.” —Machiavelli (The Prince, chapter 21) A vast literature explains how policy makers shape public understandings of social problems in order to accomplish their agenda (e.g., Alexander and Smith 1993; Berezin 1997; Jacobs and Sobieraj 2007; Reed 2013; Skrentny 2004; Somers and Block 2005; Spillman 1997; Steensland 2007; Wagner-Pacifici 1994).
  • American Bolsheviki: the Beginnings of the First Red Scare, 1917 to 1918

    American Bolsheviki: the Beginnings of the First Red Scare, 1917 to 1918

    Steeplechase: An ORCA Student Journal Volume 3 Issue 2 Article 4 2019 American Bolsheviki: The Beginnings of the First Red Scare, 1917 to 1918 Jonathan Dunning Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/steeplechase Part of the European History Commons, Other History Commons, Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Dunning, Jonathan (2019) "American Bolsheviki: The Beginnings of the First Red Scare, 1917 to 1918," Steeplechase: An ORCA Student Journal: Vol. 3 : Iss. 2 , Article 4. Available at: https://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/steeplechase/vol3/iss2/4 This Feature is brought to you for free and open access by the The Office of Research and Creative Activity at Murray State's Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Steeplechase: An ORCA Student Journal by an authorized editor of Murray State's Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. American Bolsheviki: The Beginnings of the First Red Scare, 1917 to 1918 Abstract A consensus has developed among historians that widespread panic consumed the American public and government as many came to fear a Bolshevik coup of the United States government and the undermining of the American way of life beginning in early 1919. Known as the First Red Scare, this period became one of the most well-known episodes of American fear of Communism in US history. With this focus on the events of 1919 to 1920, however, historians of the First Red Scare have often ignored the initial American reaction to the October Revolution in late 1917 and throughout 1918.
  • Writing About Espionage Secrets

    Writing About Espionage Secrets

    Secrecy and Society ISSN: 2377-6188 Volume 2 Number 1 Secrecy and Intelligence Article 7 September 2018 Writing About Espionage Secrets Kristie Macrakis Georgia Tech, Atlanta, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/secrecyandsociety Part of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons, and the Other History Commons Recommended Citation Macrakis, Kristie. 2018. "Writing About Espionage Secrets." Secrecy and Society 2(1). https://doi.org/10.31979/2377-6188.2018.020107 https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/ secrecyandsociety/vol2/iss1/7 This Special Issue Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Information at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Secrecy and Society by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Writing About Espionage Secrets Abstract This article describes the author’s experiences researching three books on espionage history in three different countries and on three different topics. The article describes the foreign intelligence arm of the Ministry for State Security; a global history of secret writing from ancient to modern times; and finally, my current project on U.S. intelligence and technology from the Cold War to the War on Terror. The article also discusses the tensions between national security and openness and reflects on the results of this research and its implications for history and for national security. Keywords Central Intelligence Agency, CIA,
  • Trials Under the Espionage and Sedition Acts During World War I

    Trials Under the Espionage and Sedition Acts During World War I

    Where was the First Amendment? Trials Under the Espionage and Sedition Acts During WWI by Kathryn Horrocks HST 499 June 2, 2005 First Reader: Dr. Jensen Second Reader: Dr. Lowe Before the passage of the Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1917 and 1918, the United States government sought to curb anti-war efforts with prosecutions under remaining Civil War conspiracy statutes. However, these statutes were not effective on persons acting or speaking out against the war alone because by definition a conspiracy requires more than one person. 1 To close these loopholes and successfully control public discussions and actions that may have harmed the war effort, Congress passed the Espionage Act in June of 1917 2. This Act censored speech, behavior and publication of information that intended to undermine the US war effort, or aid her enemies.3 However, this element of intent allowed some anti-war speech to go unpunished. Occasional acquittals under the Espionage Act, and violence against political dissidents prompted congress to pass the Sedition Act almost a year later. The Sedition Act was very similar to the Espionage Act, except for the inclusion of a section which forbid the utterance or publication of “disloyal, scurrilous or abusive language” regarding the US, her flag, her military or her government. 4 This closed the loophole created by the element of intent, and its effect was to “ban dissent of any kind.”5 These Acts and their effects came into direct conflict with the First Amendment of the Constitution which clearly prevents congress from “abridging 1 Shirley J Burton, “The Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1917 and 1918: Sectional Interpretations in the United States District Courts of Illinois,” Illinois Historical Journal 87(1) (1994), 41.
  • National Security Secrecy: How the Limits Change

    National Security Secrecy: How the Limits Change

    Steven Aftergood National Security Secrecy: How the Limits Change as a nation, we seem to be of two minds about secrecy. we know that government secrecy is incompatible with democratic decision-making in obvious ways. By definition, secrecy limits access to official information, thereby impeding public participation in the deliberative process and inhibiting or preventing the accountability of government officials for their actions. Yet there is a near universal consensus that some measure of secrecy is justified and necessary to protect authorized national security activities, such as intelligence gathering and military operations, to permit confidential deliberations in the course of policy development, to secure personal privacy, and for other reasons. Reconciling these conflicting interests is an ongoing challenge. A stable secrecy policy is hard to achieve since the proper boundaries of offi- cial secrecy cannot be clearly articulated in the abstract and tend to shift over time. In practice, decisions to restrict information seem to depend on prevailing security considerations (secrecy is more pronounced in time of war), official predispositions (some political leaders favor secrecy more than others), and public attitudes and expectations. In recent years, a large and growing number of public interest organizations and professional societies have turned their attention to government secrecy, identifying it as an obstacle to achieving their own objectives. In fact, there are at least two entire coalitions of organiza- tions devoted to combating secrecy: Openthegovernment.org and the Research for this paper was supported by grants from the Foundation to Promote Open Society, the HKH Foundation, the CS Fund, the Stewart R. Mott Foundation, and the Rockefeller Family Fund.
  • Chapter 20 Ap® Focus & Annotated Chapter Outline Ap® Focus

    Chapter 20 Ap® Focus & Annotated Chapter Outline Ap® Focus

    CHAPTER 20 AP® FOCUS & ANNOTATED CHAPTER OUTLINE AP® FOCUS Period 7: 1890–1945 AP U.S. History Key Concepts 7.2 A revolution in technology created a new mass culture and spread “modern” values amid increasing cultural conflicts. • Wartime tensions and xenophobia led to legislation restricting immigration. • World Wars I and II contributed to increased migration, both internally and to the United States. 7.3 Global conflicts led to debates over the United States’ increasingly dominant role in the world. • American expansionism led to overseas involvement and acquisitions in the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific. • World War I increased debates over the proper role of the United States in the world. ANNOTATED CHAPTER OUTLINE The following annotated chapter outline will help you review the major topics covered in this chapter. I. From Expansion to Imperialism A. Foundations of Empire 1. Historians used to describe turn-of-the-twentieth-century U.S. imperialism as something new. Now they emphasize continuities between foreign policy in this era and the nation’s earlier, relentless expansion across the continent. 2. Policymakers beginning in the 1890s went on a determined quest for global markets. Industrialization and a modern navy provided tools for the United States to flex its muscle, and the economic crisis of the 1890s provided a spur. 3. Confronting high unemployment and mass protests, policymakers feared that American workers would embrace socialism or communism. The alternative, they believed, was overseas markets that would create jobs and prosperity at home. 4. Intellectual trends also favored imperialism. As early as 1885, Congregationalist minister Josiah Strong urged Protestants to proselytize overseas.
  • Espionage Act of 1917

    Espionage Act of 1917

    Communication Law Review An Analysis of Congressional Arguments Limiting Free Speech Laura Long, University of Oklahoma The Alien and Sedition Acts, Espionage and Sedition Acts, and USA PATRIOT Act are all war-time acts passed by Congress which are viewed as blatant civil rights violations. This study identifies recurring arguments presented during congressional debates of these acts. Analysis of the arguments suggests that Terror Management Theory may explain why civil rights were given up in the name of security. Further, the citizen and non-citizen distinction in addition to political ramifications are discussed. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 are considered by many as gross violations of civil liberties and constitutional rights. John Miller, in his book, Crisis in Freedom, described the Alien and Sedition Acts as a failure from every point of view. Miller explained the Federalists’ “disregard of the basic freedoms of Americans [completed] their ruin and cost them the confidence and respect of the people.”1 John Adams described the acts as “an ineffectual attempt to extinguish the fire of defamation, but it operated like oil upon the flames.”2 Other scholars have claimed that the acts were not simply unwise policy, but they were unconstitutional measures.3 In an article titled “Order vs. Liberty,” Larry Gragg argued that they were blatantly against the First Amendment protections outlined only seven years earlier.4 Despite popular opinion that the acts were unconstitutional and violated basic civil liberties, arguments used to pass the acts have resurfaced throughout United States history. Those arguments seek to instill fear in American citizens that foreigners will ultimately be the demise to the United States unless quick and decisive action is taken.
  • INTERVENTION of STATE SOVEREIGNTY THROUGH RELEASING STATE SECRECY by WIKILEAKS Engla Puspita Haria, S.H.,M.H

    INTERVENTION of STATE SOVEREIGNTY THROUGH RELEASING STATE SECRECY by WIKILEAKS Engla Puspita Haria, S.H.,M.H

    INTERVENTION OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY THROUGH RELEASING STATE SECRECY BY WIKILEAKS Engla Puspita Haria, S.H.,M.H. ABSTRACT The increasing number of disclosure of state secrecy in this age create by Wikileaks make the impact for state sovereignty such as stability of state, disturb the relationship between the state, dysfunction of government and political and economic instance. This number happened because of some factors:1) insufficiency of sophisticated technological support provided by related state, advancement and introducing new technology, collision between staff members. corruptions, and international criminal syndicated:2)the inconstancy law regulated the criminal act about secrecy state;3)technological advances while the human resources that are not reliable. But in other hand, people have right to know and it remarkable in Declaration of Human Right article 19 But there is no regulation at national and international level for Wikileaks. In this research, the study will investigate two problems: 1) what the impact for state sovereignty because of disclosure state secrecy; and 2) what is the legal action to protect state secrecy and study will find the problem of this research and create some offered solution and use the ultimate value in of all part the research with use the existence of legal theory, legal practice, norm or regulations, legal fact and indicated the conflict either. So this research will use normative type of research. In fact, in this research, study has analyze the case of Wikileaks and found that wikileaks already disclosure the data that very important for state sovereignty. Most of their documents are from the people who steal from diplomatic cable of state.
  • The War to End All Wars. COMMEMORATIVE

    The War to End All Wars. COMMEMORATIVE

    FALL 2014 BEFORE THE NEW AGE and the New Frontier and the New Deal, before Roy Rogers and John Wayne and Tom Mix, before Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse and Felix the Cat, before the TVA and TV and radio and the Radio Flyer, before The Grapes of Wrath and Gone with the Wind and The Jazz Singer, before the CIA and the FBI and the WPA, before airlines and airmail and air conditioning, before LBJ and JFK and FDR, before the Space Shuttle and Sputnik and the Hindenburg and the Spirit of St. Louis, before the Greed Decade and the Me Decade and the Summer of Love and the Great Depression and Prohibition, before Yuppies and Hippies and Okies and Flappers, before Saigon and Inchon and Nuremberg and Pearl Harbor and Weimar, before Ho and Mao and Chiang, before MP3s and CDs and LPs, before Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall and Jackie Robinson, before the pill and Pampers and penicillin, before GI surgery and GI Joe and the GI Bill, before AFDC and HUD and Welfare and Medicare and Social Security, before Super Glue and titanium and Lucite, before the Sears Tower and the Twin Towers and the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building, before the In Crowd and the A Train and the Lost Generation, before the Blue Angels and Rhythm & Blues and Rhapsody in Blue, before Tupperware and the refrigerator and the automatic transmission and the aerosol can and the Band-Aid and nylon and the ballpoint pen and sliced bread, before the Iraq War and the Gulf War and the Cold War and the Vietnam War and the Korean War and the Second World War, there was the First World War, World War I, The Great War, The War to End All Wars.
  • Statement of Geoffrey R. Stone Edward H

    Statement of Geoffrey R. Stone Edward H

    Statement of Geoffrey R. Stone Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law The University of Chicago Hearing on the Espionage Act and the Legal and Constitutional Issues Raised by WikiLeaks Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives December 16, 2010 The proposed SHIELD Act1 would amend the Espionage Act of 19172 to make it a crime for any person knowingly and willfully to disseminate, in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States, “any classified information . concerning the human intelligence activities of the United States or . concerning the identity of a classified source or informant” working with the intelligence community of the United States. Although the Act might be constitutional as applied to a government employee who “leaks” such classified material, it is plainly unconstitutional as applied to other individuals who might publish or otherwise disseminate such information. With respect to such other individuals, the Act violates the First Amendment unless, at the very least, it is expressly limited to situations in which the individual knows that the dissemination of the classified material poses a clear and present danger of grave harm to the nation. The clear and present danger standard, in varying forms, has been a central element of our First Amendment jurisprudence ever since Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes first enunciated it in his 1919 opinion in Schenk v. United States.3 In the 90 years since Schenck, the precise meaning of “clear and present danger” has shifted,4 but the principle that animates the standard was stated eloquently by Justice Louis D.
  • Understanding Self-Deception Through Theory, Evidence and Application

    Understanding Self-Deception Through Theory, Evidence and Application

    Secrecy and Society ISSN: 2377-6188 Volume 2 Number 2 Teaching Secrecy Article 2 January 2021 Keeping Secrets from Ourselves: Understanding Self-deception Through Theory, Evidence and Application Mathew J. Creighton University College Dublin, Ireland, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/secrecyandsociety Part of the Other Sociology Commons Recommended Citation Creighton, Mathew J.. 2021. "Keeping Secrets from Ourselves: Understanding Self- deception Through Theory, Evidence and Application." Secrecy and Society 2(2). https://doi.org/10.31979/2377-6188.2021.020202 https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/ secrecyandsociety/vol2/iss2/2 This Special Issue Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Information at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Secrecy and Society by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License. Keeping Secrets from Ourselves: Understanding Self-deception Through Theory, Evidence and Application Abstract Self-deception is a difficult concept to share with students. Although few students find it implausible that they are capable of keeping secrets from themselves, the social theory, application, and practical demonstration of self-deception is far from straightforward. This work offers a three-step approach to teach a theoretically-grounded, evidence-based, and application-reinforced understanding of self-deception. Rooted in work on identity by Mead (1934), the approach outlined here engages with interdisciplinary case studies derived from social psychology (Greenwald, McGhee and Schwartz 1998) and behavioral economics (Ariely 2012).
  • The First Amendment in Its Forgotten Years

    The First Amendment in Its Forgotten Years

    The First Amendment in Its Forgotten Years David M. Rabbant TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Free Speech Before the Courts 522 A. Supreme Court Cases 524 I. Avoiding First Amendment Issues 525 Resisting Incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment 525 Excluding Publications from the Mails 526 Neglecting First Amendment Issues 529 Limiting the Meaning of Speech 531 2. Addressing First Amendment Issues 533 Justice Holmes and the Bad Tendency of Speech 533 Review of Statutes Penalizing Speech 536 The First Amendment as the Embodiment of English Common Law 539 3. Hints of Protection 540 4. Summary 542 B. Decisions Based on State Law 543 1. The Bad Tendency Doctrine 543 Speech by Radicals 543 Obscenity and Public Morals 548 2. Libel 550 3. Political Speech 551 4. Labor Injunctions 553 5. Speech in Public Places 555 C. The Judicial Tradition 557 t Counsel, American Association of University Professors. 514 Prewar Free Speech II. Legal Scholarship 559 A. The Social Interest in Free Speech 563 B. The Distinction Between Public and Private Speech 564 1. Schofield's Formulation of the Distinction 564 2. Other Scholarly Support for the Distinction 566 C. The Expanding Conception of Free Speech 568 D. The Rejection of Blackstone 570 E. The Limits of Protected Speech 572 1. The Direct Incitement Test 572 2. Pound's Balancing Test 575 3. Schroeder's Test of Actual Injury 576 4. The Benefits of LibertarianStandards 578 F. The Heritage of Prewar Scholarship 579 III. The Role of the Prewar Tradition in the Early Develop- ment of Modern First Amendment Doctrine 579 A.