Sedition Act Research Paper

Government censorship continued with the passing of the Espionage Act in 1917 and the Sedition Amendment in 1918. The Espionage Act and Sedition Amendment condemned any antiwar activity or desecrating of the government, Constitution, flag, or military. The American public could not have an opinion, unless that opinion supported the war and government. Even Wilson stated, "Woe be to the man or group of men that seeks to stand in our way." Government censorship and “unpatriotic acts”, as deemed by the Espionage Act and Sedition Amendment, gave birth to a suspicious nation.

In the late 1910’s Congress passed the Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1917 and 1918 (ESA). Historian Howard Zinn sees the ESA as a malicious attempt by the U.S. government to “imprison Americans who spoke or wrote out against the war.” Zinn’s argument dismisses the idea that the ESA was a necessary step to ensure the integrity of a nation at war, as he believes that America’s entrance into WWI was motivated by a selfish desire for monetary gain and economic expansion. Zinn asserts that the U.S. government allowed American investors to “tie American finance closely to the interest of a British victory.” While Zinn’s ideas are well-argued and supported, they tell only one side of a complicated story. James West Davidson, however, tells another. He argues that at the time of the ESA’s passing, the United States had been pushed by German action into the first global conflict in its history. He describes the German U-boat attacks that were devastating the Atlantic, and the reports of “cracking morale” that were trickling in from the front lines, and asserts that the ESA was passed by a desperate government in order to combat protestors who attempted to sway public opinion against the war. Davidson never explicitly describes the ESA as good or bad, but he provides some valuable context that Zinn ignores. The ESA was not, as Zinn alleges, a heartless assault on the American coordinated “with all the power of the federal government and the money of big business behind it,” nor was it a shining example of individual freedoms. It was a complicated document with complicated implications, and consideration of only Zinn’s or Davidson’s writings eliminates the intricacies that were inherent in the ESA, and the circumstances that lead to its

After the Espionage Act, came the Sedition Act in 1918. The Sedition Act did not allow language “tending to incite, provoke, and encourage resistance to the United States in said war”. This Act infringed further on people’s First Amendment rights. Individuals’ abilities to express themselves were curtailed. One of the people that went against this Act was Joseph Abrams. Abrams was a Russian immigrant who did not agree with the Americans invading Russia. Because of this,

Why did the Federalists believe that the Sedition Act was necessary?  What exactly was the threat, according to Abigail Adams? What threat is implied by the wording of the act?

Do you know that notifying your fellow Americans of their constitutional rights was a Federal crime? Well it was during World War One (WWI). In the case Schenck v. the United States, schenck tried to remind his fellow Americans of their constitutional rights and also let them know that the draft was being used as a form of militarized slavery. This case contained men who his right was taken away after he tried to get the military draftees to fight against the draft. However Congress took his right of speech away when it was arrested and convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917. This was the time the WWI one had broken out, the government need men to fight. They were short staffed for that to work and they need man to fight this

Throughout history we have seen how the government can censor the media during a time of war, in despite of the first amendment. We are entitled to our voices and opinions and by censoring what the media and citizens feel, not allowing them to express their concerns or ideas or concepts is an atrocity. The government decides if we enter a war not the citizens. Are we are never allowed to speak out against a war? Does this mean we are unpatriotic or unamerican? During the Civil War, the military often kept reporters off the battlefields. Years later, the U.S. entered the First World War and took control of all radio communications and censored all photographs. Congress then passed the Espionage and

This is evidenced by the creation of the final act in the Alien and Sedition Acts, which states that the publication of anything that makes the American government look bad is punishable by fine or prison time. This once again shows American Exceptionalism in that the US government wanted everyone to believe that they were the perfect form of government. This act angered many people because they viewed this as unconstitutional because it violated the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Edward Livingston, a congressman from New York said, “...by this act… the president alone is empowered to make the law, to fix in his mind what acts, what words, what thoughts or looks, shall constitute the crime contemplated by the bill…” (Document Q). These people thought it best that the federal government’s powers were more limited because they feared that the federal government would become too powerful and tyrannical, or even worse, revert back to a monarchy. They were further angered by the fact that they were not allowed to print anything that stated their opinion, but those with the opposite opinion could. One example of this is the propaganda that is seen in Document M. This is a political cartoon that shows the occurrences of the XYZ affair. The cartoon is used to portray France as corrupt and show that America is better than all other countries, and is an example of the US federal government having too much power because they are, in a way, able to influence the minds of the people by controlling what they read. Other people however, argued that the Sedition Act is not unconstitutional at all and is merely a reiteration of what has already been stated. John Allen, Federalist congressman from Connecticut wrote, “The freedom of the press and opinions was never understood to give the right of publishing falsehoods and slanders, nor of

In the past and even now the government has restricted our freedom of speech with laws and regulations. In times of war or if the country was on the verge of war these drastic actions were deemed necessary. On the eve of the quasi war with France, Congress passed the Aliens and Sedition Act which was a series of laws under a collective name. These laws were passed in apprehension of the coming war with France. The most controversial of these acts was the Sedition act. This

Government censorship continued with the passing of the Espionage Act in 1917 and the Sedition Amendment in 1918. The Espionage Act and Sedition Amendment condemned any antiwar activity or desecrating of the government, Constitution, flag, or military. The American public were almost at a point where they could not have an opinion, unless in support of the war and government. Even Wilson stated, "Woe be to the man or group of men that seeks to stand in our way." These acts of censorship gave birth to a suspicious nation.

The main purpose of the Sedition Act is so that people do not speak badly of the U.S. And its military to turn people against America. This law limits our freedom of speech because it goes against the constitution. The constitution says people in America can have freedom of speech to say what they want. Because of this law people can not voice their opinions about the current war. I do not think his law was fully necessary. You can not be able to fully monitor a person's exact speech. People will still be able to say what they want therefor the law almost pointless. Freedom of speech should be allowed during war times that way the U.S, government can see what the people think so they can make decisions on what to do next. The punishments

Along the same lines, the 1st Amendment guarantees U.S. citizens freedom of speech. On June 8, 1789 this amendment was put into the constitution. Madison said at the time, ''the people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.'' Well in 1917, this inviolable right of speech was no longer inviolable. The Supreme Court decided that you only have the freedom of speech while not endangering others or presenting a clear and present danger. That seems fair. This makes the law able to punish people who pull a fire alarm when there’s no fire, or call in a false bomb threat, but since when was handing out a pamphlet that had your beliefs on it illegal. Ask Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer who were charged and prosecuted for making pamphlets talking about

Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 “forbade false, scandalous, and malicious publications against the U.S. government, congress, and the President” (Pembert & Calvert, 2011, p. 48). The law was used to punish those who sought to cause problems and urged resistance to the government. There were 15 prosecutions under this law, many of which belonged to leading papers in the nation at that time. This law was overturned in 1801 and President Jefferson pardoned all those convicted under this law. Today people are allowed to criticize the government and publicly hold views that do not go along with the government or the current administration with little to no prosecution.

Free expression allows for people to seek the complete truth regarding an issue, establish a functioning democracy, and express themselves as they wish. While the theories of Chafee and Meiklejohn may set certain limits on different types of expression, they also emphasize and support the fundamental importance of free speech in maintaining a democracy. Finally, even in stating my own opinion about free speech, I am demonstrating why it is important: citizens of the United States can express themselves to the best of their ability and fulfill their human need to simply express themselves without worry fear of prison. Thus, while dealing with national controversies, such as Edward Snowden, can begin arguments over the need for such a wide protection of free speech, it is important to reflect back on the First Amendment and the reasoning behind its establishment. In this manner, the American people can become more appreciative of this unique right and more willing to protect it if ever under siege by the

In 1919, in the wake of World War I, Charles Schenck was arrested on the charge of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 by encouraging eligible United States citizens not to comply with the draft during the war. He took his case to the Supreme Court claiming that his freedom of speech granted to him by the First Amendment had been violated. In a unanimous vote, the court ruled that in times of “clear and present danger” the freedom of speech clause could be revoked. This case served as a precedent in times of national crises and has allowed the government to better protect the citizens of the United States.

If this act is confusing please go to the introduction the definition is there on what the Sedition Act is. Like before the law is under the Espionage Act. The reason is different though, but they are still the same in a way. Most people will think that these two acts should be combined. This Act was harsh, because people would get punished if they talked bad about the country or conspire.The punishment is a fine of $5000 and jail time for 6 months to -5 years. If it was in writing the fine would be $2000 and jail time not exceeding 2 years.This was in the 1918’s. So it was harsh, because the government did not want a bad