740
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 9:
Line 9: + + + +
Talk:Sedition Act of 1918 (view source)
Revision as of 17:02, November 14, 2009
, 17:02, November 14, 2009→Are they good things?: Reply - act would prevent criticizing the President
:But even so, what's wrong with the additional information I added about how they've been seen? --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 11:55, 14 November 2009 (EST)
:But even so, what's wrong with the additional information I added about how they've been seen? --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 11:55, 14 November 2009 (EST)
::The Supreme Court never held either act unconstitutional. Liberals dislike the laws but this is a conservative encyclopedia and we don't like the actions prohibited. Most states rejected the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions--which led to horrible misery in the Civil War.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:57, 14 November 2009 (EST)
::The Supreme Court never held either act unconstitutional. Liberals dislike the laws but this is a conservative encyclopedia and we don't like the actions prohibited. Most states rejected the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions--which led to horrible misery in the Civil War.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:57, 14 November 2009 (EST)
:::I'd say that the Supreme Court has:
:::{{quotebox|The invalidity of the Act has also been assumed by Justices of this Court. See Holmes, J., dissenting and joined by Brandeis, J., in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630; Jackson, J., dissenting in Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 288-289; Douglas, The Right of the People (1958), p. 47. See also Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (8th ed., Carrington, 1927), pp. 899-900; Chafee, Free Speech in the United States (1942), pp. 27-28. These views reflect a broad consensus that the Act, because of the restraint it imposed upon criticism of government and public officials, was inconsistent with the First Amendment. [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0376_0254_ZO.html] }}
:::But, sure, I don't take the SCOTUS as a fully authoritative source [[Roe v. Wade|either]]. Still, I hope we can all agree that we should be free to criticize President Obama and ex-President Bush. That would have been prohibited by the Sedition Act:
:::{{quotebox| That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or publishing, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.}}