Sedition is
Sadistic
This country is known as the
greatest in the world for one lingering reason.
The inhabitants of this country are given the freedoms to live their
lives in peace, without fear that they will be watched over by an all powerful
government or monarchy. America was
founded based upon those simple freedoms, getting away from government control
in England. The founding fathers wrote a
constitution with only 4,543 words, the constitution was meant to give the same
freedoms to everyone and lesson the hold on the government over the citizens of
the nation. There have been many
amendments enacted over the years that followed to enhance the freedom of
Americans. So one can ask, is it okay
for the government to make laws that limit our freedom, and take away what
America stands for?
In any society, there will be
rules set into place to keep an order to things, and prevent chaos from
ensuing. When this country was founded,
it was decided that too many laws were pointless. Laws only prevented good people from doing
bad things. Bad people were going to do
bad things, no matter what law was enacted.
So less law and more enforcement of good behavior was seen as the way to
rule society. However when our second
president was elected into office, he was afraid that too much freedom would
allow certain individuals to overthrow the government. In 1798, John Adams passed an act called
Sedition, which prevented anyone from speaking in a harmful way against the
government (New world encyclopedia, n.d.).
This act would prevent anyone
from making threats against the President, threats against the government, or
to say or publicize words that may cause harm to the government in any way. However the first amendment to the
constitution was written and included in the Bill of Rights in 1789, in clearly
stated that the government could make no laws that prevented the citizens’
freedom of speech. The sedition act was
in clear violation of this amendment, and was repealed under the very next
president, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson
claimed that this act was a violation of American citizens freedoms and a
violation of what America stood for (Constitutional rights foundation, 2012).
Before Jefferson could repeal
this act, however, there were cases of it being used to imprison certain
parties who had spoken out against the government. Thomas Cooper was a lawyer who happened to
dislike President Adams. He wrote an
article criticizing the President, and he was not looked upon too favorably for
this. In 1800, the United States vs.
Thomas Cooper went to trial and found Cooper guilty of violating the sedition
act (National archives, n.d.). However
when Thomas Jefferson repealed the sedition act, he pardoned those who had been
convicted of violating it, as he deemed the act unconstitutional (New world
encyclopedia, n.d.)
Even though this act was
repealed, it seems to come to light throughout the years still. When there is an unpopular president, and
someone makes an off color remark that may be taken the wrong way or be taken
to mean the threatening of that President or of the government itself, this act
is brought up again in various fashions.
Take for example the case of Benjamin Gitlow. He was trying to ratify the government with
what he published as a Left Wing Manifesto in a small newspaper (Case briefs,
2012). This manifesto was designed to
push ideas of socialist reform within the United States. This was during a time of the Great Depression,
when Calvin Coolidge was trying to reduce government control and government
spending. The socialist movement would
provide more government services to those in need, or so Gitlow felt. It is very similar to how the country is
divided now, over government spending and larger government social
services.
Gitlow’s manifesto was,
however, considered radical and also thought that if published widely would
incited violence and a takeover of the government, ultimately leading to a
socialist regime as seen in the likes of Russia and other less free
countries. The Supreme Court ruled that
he was an anarchist, who was in direct violation of the government, and was
trying to cause harm to the government and its people. The state was in effect ruling against this
one man’s freedom, to protect the freedom of the many. Is this fair, or legal?
In one way or another, this
law of sedition has been brought up since its inception. As stated previously, it is usually when
there is an unpopular president, who is trying to stifle those who disagree
with them. The president has technology
and intelligence agencies to protect them and they are working tirelessly
around the clock. That is why the press
and media can say hateful things against the President and the country, and get
away with it, without fear of being prosecuted for treason or anarchy. However one false move that is detected by
the wrong agency at the wrong time, will land you a meeting with the law.
Recently, rocker Ted Nugent
made comments disagreeing with our current president. He was visited by the Secret Service, and
interviewed to ensure that his comments were not meant to threaten the
President himself, nor the safety of the country (The Christian science
monitor, 2012). However with comments
made on a daily basis about the president by the news media, and about the
previous president when he was in office, one has to question if this was just
a political ploy, or if it truly was an investigation in the interest of
national security. Has the act of
sedition always been this way? It seems
when looking back throughout history that this has been the case. It is not purely one-sided either, when it
comes to politics. Both political
parties have been in the limelight of cases similar to this one.
Did the original founding
fathers of this country feel that the government could not be questioned at
all? It is true that they questioned the
government from which they came, otherwise there would be no United States of
America. It is also true that they did
not account for many of the gross injustices that have happened in the 20th
and 21st centuries.
Slanderous speech, hateful racism and sexism, raucous acts filmed, all
of these things that have been made public because of the television and Internet. However when one act is brought about that
limits freedoms in the hopes of protecting certain citizens, who is to say when
enough is enough? Who is to say when
those limitations will be taken too far, and when our freedoms will cease to
exist?
Look at what freedoms we have
been given in this country thanks to the constitution and the Bill of
Rights. Each law that is passed into
effect can either enhance our freedom, or take it away. However changing the constitution to suit the
needs of the President, and/or a political party, drastically changes the needs
and the values of this country. Is the
act of sedition really a protection against government uprising? Or is it a political ploy that fundamentally
takes away our freedom of speech? You
decide.
References
Case briefs. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-chemerinsky/first-amendment-freedom-of-expression/gitlow-v-new-york/
Constitutional rights
foundation. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/the-alien-and-sedition-acts.html
New world encyclopedia. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
The Christian
science monitor. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0420/Ted-Nugent-Motor-City-Madman-had-solid-meeting-with-Secret-Service
No comments:
Post a Comment