What's Old is New Again...

In 1917, The State of Montana passed a law outlawing sedition.[1]

Caught up in the hysteria of World War I, Montana’s citizens sought to control the expression of thoughts that criticized the government, the way the war was being fought and, even, the uniforms the soldiers wore.

Almost two hundred people were arrested and seventy-nine persons were convicted of sedition under this law. Most of them for careless remarks made in haste in public venues. Nineteen were fined up to $20,000, ($275,000 in today’s dollars). All of them served an average of 19 months in prison. More than half of the men prosecuted were foreign born.

When congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917[2], the parts of the law dealing with seditious speech were almost identical to the Montana Act. Twenty more people were arrested in Montana under the federal statute but, fortunately, none were convicted.

It took until the Supreme Court decision in Brandenburg vs. Ohio, (full text here), in 1969 to finally close the door on laws relating to seditious speech. That’s around fifty years, give or take...

Most people would have thought the speech that brought on these prosecutions in 1917 was protected against infringement by the first amendment to the constitution. At the time, the constitution was held to only protect the right of citizens to free speech in a very limited way. In most instances, the law was interpreted narrowly as not applying to the states. It is in this atmosphere that the anti-seditionists operated.

Besides, nobody actually liked the people being prosecuted. After all, half of the people persecuted were foreigners and none of them supported the position held by the majority. So, why should we care about what happened to them?

In 2006, all seventy-nine people convicted of sedition under the 1917 law were pardoned by Montana governor Brian Schweitzer. 

So, what does what happened in Montana in 1917 have to do with today?

Plenty.

When presidents, members of congress and soldiers take office, they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Apparently, some of them either didn’t understand that oath, weren’t serious when they took the oath or have forgotten about the oath.

Terry Jones, the pastor who burned the Koran in March has been attacked, savagely, by some politicians for his actions. 

Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate Majority Leader in the current congress, and Lindsey Graham, (check out the picture on this web page, he looks like someone who is on a year long Quaalude bender), congressman from South Carolina seem to be among the people who have forgotten the oath they swore to uphold the constitution and have traded it for jingoist screeds.

Mr. Reid and Mr. Graham have openly advocated that Terry Jones receive some kind of governmental sanction for his burning of a  Koran. Reid wasn’t sure what they could do, but thought they might need to hold hearings on the subject. At the time they made their statements, neither man seemed to know what sanctions would be appropriate. Thank God.


Or, Terry Jones might be swinging by his neck from the tree of political expediency.

On the TV news program, Face The Nation, Mr. Graham said: “I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war."

Later in the program, Mr. Lindsey stuck his foot in his mouth, again, by saying: “But General Petreaus understand [sic] better than anybody else in America what happens when something like this is done in our country and he was right to condemn it and I think Congress would be right to reinforce what General Petreasus said.”

So, Mr. Reid and Mr. Graham think that Terry Jones expression of burning the Koran might be criminal and that he should be sanctioned. Mr. Graham believes that free speech does not apply during ‘war’ and that the word of Gen. David Petreaus is enough to sanction Mr. Jones for exercising his constitutionally protected right to free speech. Where did we get these guys?

Neither seems too worried about protecting or defending the Constitution of the the United States because “we’re in a war” and the Afghanis are tearing themselves apart over the mutterings of some old guy from Florida. 

The war we are in, is you know, a war on terror, created by the republicans to keep their corporate masters raking in the big bucks on defense contracts. That ‘war’. The ‘long war’, now playing in Iraq and Afghanistan; coming soon to Libya.

And Terry Jones is a real wack-job who nobody takes seriously, so we can infringe on his rights without worrying about it. Marginalize away!

Talk about the tyranny of the many over the liberties of the few.

Andrew Sullivan said, in a piece published by The Atlantic, that during war, assaults on the constitutional rights of the citizens are common. Then he goes on to posit, because this is a ‘permanent war’, the civil liberties given up for this war with be gone forever.

That’s a sobering thought.

My conclusion here is that Terry Jones’ speech is being attacked by people who don’t believe in the right of everyone - including, and especially, unpleasant people - to free expression. They think free speech should be limited to things they want to hear. Right.

Just like the citizens of Montana criminalized speech they didn’t want to hear in 1917 by passing the Sedition Act; Reid and Graham want to stifle Jones' speech. In fact, they are tripping all over themselves re-defining Terry Jones’ civil rights so they can criminalize his speech.

The other thing that comes to mind when discussing these two guys is do they really care/know/appreciate what they are saying. Or are they just saying it so they can get attention? In other words are they just pandering to their base without any intent to actually act upon what they say? I would say this is more likely what is happening here. They are bullshitting to the republican crowd. Preaching to the choir. 


And it is beyond frightening. Because, despite the fact these two guys are looney tunes, a lot of people listen to them and believe what they are saying. And would love to act upon it.

And how do we know they aren’t serious? I mean how do you tell? Or do I have to wait until the guy from Homeland Security comes knocking on my door for saying that Lindsey Graham’s picture looks like he is on a year long Quaalude bender?

After all, I am just one guy, in a high and lonely place, sitting in the glow of a computer monitor, spewing (seditious?) speech... Who gives a damn about me?

The ultimate irony about all this is that Graham[3] is a hard line republican. The republican party has spent the last ten years telling us how evil muslims are. Including their most recent attempt to convince us the muslims among us are all terrorists; the hearings held by congressman Peter King, (King’s picture looks like he’s got something stuck up his... ...well, you get the idea), chairman of the Committee on Homeland security.

Now, Graham are upset because Terry Jones said something bad about muslims. And he wants to send Jones to jail. I can't stop laughing.

[2] The actual text of the law is as follows: "Whenever the United States shall be engaged in war, any person or persons who shall utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, violent, scurrilous, contemptuous, slurring or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the constitution of the United States, or the soldiers or sailors of the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the army or navy of the United States or shall utter, print, write or publish any language calculated to incite or inflame resistance to any duly constituted Federal or State authority in connection with the prosecution of the War shall be guilty of sedition."

Clement Work’s book Darkest Before Dawn: Sedition and Free Speech in the American West is well written work about a time when we all but abandoned our constitutional rights - voluntarily.

[2] You know, the one they are trying to use to persecute Julian Assange and Bradly Manning with.


[3] I, originally, stated both Reid and Graham were republicans. Mr. Reid is a democrat. Which begs the question: What is the difference between democrats and republcans?