When a nation is in war, there are many things at stake. One is obviously the integrity of the state and its ability to do its job. Secondly, in order to preserve the safety in the nation, the government chooses to sacrifice the rights of the people in order to protect the state at any and all costs. The most interesting thing about the United States is that in all of our significant crises, whether it range from WW1 to 9/11, the government has always cracked down upon the rights of the citizens because it is crucial to keep a certain mentality or energy surrounding the nation's policy.
During WW1, the world was in its first war with itself. The United States, a nation considered to be one of relatively no censorship of press. In the first amendment, it states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." When the United States was formed, the founding fathers did not want to crack down upon their press likes the British did to them during the 1760s-1770s. The founding fathers believed that a free press was instrumental in protecting the citizens' right to opinion and share ideas.
Passed in June of 1917, the Espionage Act allowed the postal service to ban the distribution of letters and newspapers that spoke out against the war drafts. Later in 1918, Congress passed perhaps the worse of the two bills, which declared saying and spreading "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States and its government was a federal offense. The US government cracked down upon the citizens who were attempting to speak out severely against the US government, and thus significantly crushing the liberties of Americans.
In every single situation when the United States has been at war of any kind, the Supreme Court has always favored in supporting the security of the nation rather than the liberties of its citizens. This is primarily because the government has to ensure security and protection from any external threats during times of war. For example, the Patriot Act, which was passed a mere 45 days after 9/11 called for stronger surveillance access by the federal government. This meant that the government had access to monitor phone calls, watch your internet search history, and bank records. This is all compiled in what are called NSLs, or National Security Letters. These are letters are issued by FBI officers and grant them access to all this information without a judge's warrant. This was designed to help increase the awareness of possible terror threats, even though it ultimately interfered with the privacy of thousands of people. Of the 192,499 NSLs issued between 2003-2006, ONE led to a terror-based conviction.
The United States as a democracy has to do one job as a government: secure property. This is the objective of the state. When a government is in times of war, all other priorities go out the window to secure the state's property. Because of this, the restrictions of Americans' rights, as supported numerous times by the Supreme Court, are encouraged in order to keep the nation from surviving any significant threats. Now, whether those threats are actually significant is up for interpretation, but the government tries to do whatever they can in order to keep the state in control.
Source:
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=3479
https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/surveillance-under-patriot-act
Interesting post, Noah! It was really eye opening to delve deeper into the Espionage Act, and I appreciated your connection of the 1917 act to the more modern day Patriot Act. I found a blog that wrote about the imprisonment of Eugene Debs, the socialist candidate for president, under the Espionage Act. According to the post, on June 16, 1918 Debs gave a speech in Canton, Ohio in which he criticized the war and he was consequently arrested and charged with sedition and violating the act. During his trial, Debs chose to represent himself and refused to call any witnesses saying, “I have been accused of obstructing the war. I admit it. I abhor war. I would oppose war if I stood alone.” Debs was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years in prison (although he was pardoned by the White House on Christmas Day 1921).
ReplyDeletehttps://griid.org/2011/06/30/this-day-is-resistance-history-%E2%80%93-eugene-debs-and-the-espionage-act/
Thanks for sharing, Noah. I really enjoyed learning more about the Espionage Act and how it limited people's rights. I found an interesting article about Alice Paul (one of the leading suffragettes) and her many arrests. Originally, she and many other suffragettes were arrested for using words that spoke out against the United States, as was outlawed in the Espionage Act. However, these women actually were just using words from Woodrow Wilson's speeches, which obviously, the US government couldn't convict them for. Ultimately, the government came up with another reason to arrest them, but I thought it was interesting to see that the Espionage Act had boundaries, even if the government always found a way to circumvent these when necessary.
ReplyDeletehttp://law.jrank.org/pages/2806/Trials-Alice-Paul-Other-National-Woman-s-Party-Members-1917.html