Free speech fights
The Wobblies, along with other radical groups, were often met with opposition (violent and otherwise) from local governments and especially business leaders, in their free speech fights.
The Wobblies, as the IWW members were called, relied upon free speech, which in the United States is guaranteed by the First Amendment, to enable them to communicate the concept of One Big Union to other workers.
In communities where the authorities saw their interests in avoiding the development of unions, the practice of soapboxing was frequently restricted by ordinance or by police harassment.
With the jails full and a seemingly endless stream of union activists arriving by boxcar and highway, the local communities frequently rescinded their prohibitions on free speech, or came to some other accommodation.
The IWW members who engaged in the free speech fights typically cited the First Amendment and the rights guaranteed therein as proof positive of the validity of their cause, thereby highlighting the legal importance of the issues they fought for.
Whereas the AFL promoted the ideals of capitalism by fighting for the rights of workers within the ideological framework of the free market system, the IWW functioned on anarchistic principles.
The primary vehicles of change for the free speech fights of the IWW were spontaneous workplace strikes as well as on-site labor slowdowns in addition to picketing, parades, and demonstrations.
The free speech fights of the IWW were often quite similar in nature: Wobblies (many of whom travelled across the country to spread their message) would visit a city's downtown and attempt to speak on soapboxes on street corners.
According to the Wobblies, the fact that they even had to fight for free speech rights was evidence of the corrupting effect of capitalism in America and of its legal system.
They were met with a variety of different public response and reactions: some supported their efforts and sought to collaborate with them while others engaged in vigilante violence against them (as was especially the case in San Diego).
Notably, few of the groups stood fast with the IWW when it came to their calls for revolution or for the overthrowing of capitalism more generally, and instead focused on the importance of the free speech rights for their own inherent worth to Americans.
Other groups and members of the public, too, began to oppose the free speech fights over time because of the aggressive tactics and language among other things.
His personal philosophy dictated that free speech could be regulated only in ways that protected it through the creation of channels of expression which would not impede the rights of others.
Many of the opponents of free speech fights, thus, were in favor of the establishment of centrally located areas that permitted oration but did not interfere with the city.
One of the key themes of the free speech fights came from the regulation of speaking on the streets and involved discussions over the importance of access to public property and how reasonable limitations could be applied to it.
The Spokesman-Review of February 17, 1909[3] reported,[4] Hurling rocks and chunks of ice through the windows of the Red Cross Employment Agency, 224 Stevens St., several members of a noisy mob of between 2,000 and 3,000 idle men were about to attempt to wreck the place about 6 o'clock last evening, when James H. Walsh, organizer of the IWW, mounted a chair and pacified the multitude.
In the opinion of the police had it not been for the intervention of Walsh, a riot would surely have followed, as the rabble was worked up to such a pitch that its members would have readily attempted violence.
[2]Overflowing prisoners were lodged in the Franklin School [then located along Front Street (now Trent)], and the War Department made Fort Wright available for more.
The IWW's "rebel girl," Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, who was fresh out of high school, delayed her arrest by chaining herself to a lamppost.
In Missoula and Spokane as in most of the other towns where free speech fights were waged, any citizen could address any assemblage on any street on any subject at any time by the end of 1912.
An ordinance had been passed by the San Diego Common Council which made it much more difficult for the Wobblies to engage in their soapbox orations without being swiftly arrested.
Sioux City was considered a very strategic town for workers to stage free speech fights in because it was "a gateway for laborers entering and leaving summer employment in agriculture and construction in the Dakotas."
Denver authorities had refused to allow the Wobblies to speak on street corners, so union members filled the jails for months.
[18] Other locations of free speech fights by the IWW included Duluth, Minnesota; Portland, Oregon; New Castle, Pennsylvania, and New Bedford, Massachusetts.
Walsh recruited volunteers to put together a small band, equipped with "a big booming bass drum," in order to get the IWW's message to listeners.
[20]Prior to television, radio, and film becoming parts of American mass culture, public speaking was a primary medium for entertainment and information.
Street speaking represented a threat to upper- and middle-class white Americans who feared that "inter-ethnoracial, working-class political coalitions" would achieve influence through the soap box.
A multitude of political groups, such as the IWW, the Socialists, the Communist Party, and the Partido Liberal Mexicano all spoke out for Angelinos to fight for the rights of the underprivileged.
The Wobblies became the more dominant social group after the Socialists lost power, but the IWW was unable to draw nearly as many people to their soapbox speeches.
They organized with striking dockworkers, but were met with extreme repression by the police who even used violent tactics to prevent their protests from being successful.
