Talk:Sedition Act of 1918

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EvanW (Talk | contribs) at 16:55, November 14, 2009. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

I copied a lot of this from wikipedia, but I thought it more important that it at least be here for now. Seeing reports that many home-schooling parents use conservapedia (sorry, don't have the link so feel free to dispute), I thought it important that this at least have an article. --TheisonMarsh

What would be the best way to reference the Sedition Act of 1798 here as well? Should we have this one page speaking of both (like I did at Missouri v. Jenkins), or should we have the Sedition Act of 1798 at Alien and Sedition Acts? Or should we have two separate pages for Sedition Act of 1918 and Sedition Act of 1798 and have this be a disambiguation? If the second, should we have a "See also" link at the top of this page like Wikipedia does? --EvanW 22:27, 13 November 2009 (EST)

Good question. This page will be moved to Sedition Act of 1918 and "Sedition Act" will be turned into a disambiguation page. Geoff PlourdeComplain! 02:34, 14 November 2009 (EST)

Are they good things?

conservatives strongly oppose sedition in wartime and have historically supported these laws--which have been upheld by the Supreme Court.RJJensen 11:44, 14 November 2009 (EST)

Yes, the Supreme Court has upheld the act of 1918, but not the act of 1789 - see [1], which mentions it in passing. Besides, we value the US Constitution, including the First Amendment, and also limited government. As Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote,
That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution; and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner, a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power, which more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right.
But even so, what's wrong with the additional information I added about how they've been seen? --EvanW 11:55, 14 November 2009 (EST)
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Sedition_Act_of_1918&oldid=720034"