As I was reading through Chapter 2 of our textbook today, I came across some interesting lines concerning the Sedition Act. The passage is as follows:
"Popular opposition to the laws was a factor in the Federalists' defeat in the 1800 election. Because the Federalists anticipated the Sedition Act might be turned against them if they lost the presidency, it included a 'Sunset Clause' so that it expired on March 3, 1801, the last day of John Adams' presidency." (Tedford and Herbeck 30).
This quote reminded me of the article we briefly discussed on Tuesday, September 11 about the White House banning certain news agencies from their press conference. According to this BBC news article, the White House denied CNN, the New York Times, BBC, as well as others from attending a briefing held by Sean Spicer. When he was asked why some news agencies were denied entrance to his conference, Spicer replied that "it was his decision to 'expand the pool' of reporters" and that "the White House was going to 'aggressively push back' at 'false narratives' in the news" (BBC News). Although this is the statement given by the White House, I'm sure that most of us know what the underlying motive was; the Trump administration was tired of being criticized by the more liberal news organizations, and they only wanted reporters who generally support the same views as them at their press conferences. In doing this, the administration can rest assured that the media will only portray the President and his staff in the best light possible.
This sudden change in policy doesn't surprise me all that much. After all, during the competition for the Republican nomination, Trump skipped debates that were likely to become hostile confrontations with his rivals. What did surprise me was that the Federalist party had a similar policy during the presidency of John Adams (1796-1800). This policy was the Sedition Act of 1798, and it punished those who spoke, wrote, or published anything that criticized the U.S. government. During its approximately three year duration, Federalists used this power to prosecute 24 Republicans editors, several private citizens, and even one congressman, which lead to some of the newspapers to suspend their publications (Tedford and Herbeck 29). As one can see, the Trump administration isn't the first group in the White House to use their power in an attempt to limit the criticizing content of the media. What I find even more fascinating is that the Federalists thought ahead and put an expiration date on the law so that their opponents couldn't use the policy against them should they win the presidential office. Apparently, they wanted to speak poorly of the Republican party without consequences but didn't want to be lambasted themselves.
This connection between past and present politics got me interested, so I decided to do a bit more research concerning restrictions on the Freedom of Speech during major events in the United States or the world. The period I ended up on was World War I. According to an article titled Opposition to the War in the United States, many Americans were opposed to joining World War I because they "still had ties to their ancestral homes; hailing from countries on all sides of the War." (Chmielewski, Cooley). General public sentiment of avoiding a large, costly war overseas also influenced many Americans to oppose joining the war. Once the U.S. did join the World War I though, the Wilson administration passed the Espionage Act of 1917 to make it illegal "to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies." Under the authority of this law, the U.S. government suppressed and incarcerated many Socialists and Radicals who opposed the war and military recruitment. They also used this power to confine and imprison drafted men who personally objected to the war; some of whom were tormented and placed under cruel conditions while confined (Chmielewski, Cooley).
Once again, the fact that the U.S. government restricted the Freedom of Speech and punished those who opposed war during a time of military conflict with other nations doesn't really surprise me. What does though is that the Wilson administration was quick to pass a law to suppress anti-war sentiment when just a year earlier the slogan used by Wilson's campaign when he was running for reelection was "He kept us out of War" (Chmieleski, Cooley). These sudden reversals in what the government perceives as acceptable opinions to voice is, at least to me, a strong indicator that the definition of the Freedom of Speech is might be adjusted soon. What do you think?
Articles
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39085235
https://wwionline.org/articles/opposition-war-united-states/
Citations
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. 8th ed. Strata Publishing, INC., 2017.
Wendy E. Chmielewski, George R. Cooley. "Opposition to the War in the United States." Swarthmore College Peace Collection, 15 July 2014, https://wwionline.org/articles/opposition-war-united-states/
Accessed 14 September 2017.
BBC News. "White House bans certain news media from briefing." BBC News, 25 February 2017,
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39085235
Accessed 13 September 2017.
I too found Trump's exclusion of media fascinating. It seems ironic to me that when Trump was up against Clinton he disparaged her character, often referring to her as "Crooked Hilary." The argument could be made that Trump won the presidency because he made Hilary out to be an unfit, untrustworthy candidate. He also likes to criticize news organizations witnessed in a tweet from his official account, “FAKE NEWS media knowingly doesn’t tell the truth. A great danger to our country. The failing @nytimes has become a joke. Likewise @CNN. Sad!” (Washington Post). His exclusion of media plagues me with many questions. Mainly, I wonder if he this goes deeper than him trying to control criticism like the Sedition Act of 1798 did. It seems to me that he is trying to cover up his own false words by accusing everyone and everything around him as being "fake news." Which raises the question: what do we do when we can't trust the leader of our country? Does freedom of speech cover misleading speech full of lies?
ReplyDeleteFarhi, Paul. “CNN, New York Times, Other Media Barred from White House Briefing.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 24 Feb. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnn-new-york-times-other-media-barred-from-white-house-briefing/2017/02/24/4c22f542-fad5-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html?utm_term=.6d0bb091fdfc.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFascinating. Throughout our history, our government has shown particular concerns about those who encouraged young men to resist being drafted into the military. That was what noted socialist Eugene V. Debs was imprisoned for in the World War I era. He then ran for president from prison in 1920 and got nearly one million votes (out of 26.7 million votes cast). In World War II, Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad was convicted and incarcerated for encouraging young Black men not to serve in the armed forces. And during the Vietnam War, Dr. Benjamin Spock and three others, including the chaplain of Yale University, were convicted of "conspiracy to counsel, aid, and abet young men to evade the draft." In part this was because they authored or signed and distributed a document titled "A Call to Resist Illegitimate Authority." Unlike Eugene Debs and Elijah Muhammad, Dr. Spock and his co-defendants won their case on appeal. Clearly, though, the government takes very seriously attempts to interfere with its supply of soldiers during wartime.
ReplyDelete