'Eating Away at Liberties'

From Justice Hugo A. Black's dissent on the Supreme Court's decision upholding the conviction of Frank Wilkenson and Carl Braden for contempt of House Un-American Activities Committee.

[These decisions] are offspring of a Congressional doctrine that is steadily sacrificing individual freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition to government control. There have been many other such decisions and the indications are that this number will continue to grow at an alarming rate. For the presently prevailing constitutional doctrine, which treats the First Amendment as a mere admonition, leaves the liberty-giving freedoms which were intended to be protected by that amendment completely at the mercy of the Congress and this court, whenever a majority of this court concludes, on the basis of any of the several judicially created "tests" now in vogue, that abridgement of freedom is more desirable than freedom itself.

Only a few days ago, the application of this constitutional doctrine wiped out the rule forbidding prior censorship of movies in an opinion that leaves the door wide open, if indeed it does not actually invite, prior censorship of other means of publication. And the Blackstonian condemnation of prior censorship had long been thought, even by those whose idea of First Amendment liberties have been most restricted, to be the absolute minimum of the protection demanded by that amendment.

I once more deny, as I have found it repeatedly necessary to do in other cases, that this nation's ability to preserve itself depends upon suppression of the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. But I do believe that the noble-sounding slogan of "self-preservation" rests upon a premise that can itself destroy any democratic nation by a slow eating away at the liberties that are indispensable to its healthy growth. The very foundation of true democracy and the foundation upon which this country was built is the fact that government is responsive to the views of its citizens, and no nation can continue to exist on such a foundation unless its citizens are wholly free to speak out fearlessly for or against their officials and their laws. When it begins to send its dissenters, such as Barablatt, Uphaus, Wilkenson, and now Braden to jail, the liberties indispensable to its existence must be fast disappearing. If self-preservation is to be the issue that decides these cases, I firmly believe that they must be decided the other way. Only by a dedicated preservation of freedoms of the First Amendment can we hope to preserve our nation and its traditional way of life.