Weren't the impositions placed on people during WW1 worse?

[Deja Q]

Worse than stuff going on now?

I recall vaguely about how the first amendment, back then, was put aside too...

It seems bad nowadays, but in context with some of the things done in the past, have we really gone farther down the tubes - economy concerns aside?

[Telly Savalas]

1. You needed a penis to vote back then.

Also, I think Wilson introduced some measures during WWI to suppress dissent. I know that Eugene Debs, a frequent socialist candidate for president, was jailed during that time for his political views. Can't recall the specifics of it, and I'm too lazy to Wikipedia it right now.

[UncleSepp]

6. That gives me a funny mental image

... combined with the Iraqi election and the purple dye, and people sticking their voting fingers up in the air...

[MissB]

16. Bad, bad Uncle

:spank:

[Jacobin]

2. I read a book about it

It was fricking godawful. WAAAAY worse than now.

Its where we are headed, but we aren't there yet.

[leftchick]

10. I have been wondering how damn bad it has to get

before folks wake up. It appears to be that damn bad and that sucks.

[xray s]

3. sedition act

most DUer's would face jail time for the posts here.

yes, it was much worse.

[The Whiskey Priest]

4. They were actually loading people on boats and

shipping them out of the country...the Palmer Raids were illegal, but happened.

[grytpype]

5. People were kicking dachshunds in the streets.

But not German shepards, strangely.

[BushOut06]

7. Civil War, WWII as well

We all know about the Japanese roundups during WWII, as well as some other gross abuses of power. I've read a few things about stuff that went on during the Civil War, but I'm not so up to speed on that.

[dsc]

8. Victory cabbage

German forbidden in schools. First red scare. Freedom was at a very low ebb back then.

[kineneb]

17. No German

My family had to stop speaking German, even at home.

[CornField]

9. For us to even equate the USA now with the USA of WWI & WWII

is, in my opinion, blunt and out-right stomping on my father's grave. He was a decorated WWII veteran -- my grandfathers were both active in WWI.

There is one big difference between what happened then and what is happening now: THERE WAS A FUCKING WAR.

There were real enemies and real reasons for our people to get up and fight. What we have here is the same stuff that started WWII on the losing side.

We have fictional enemies...

we have domestic crisis upon domestic crisis so that no real opposition can be launched against anything...

we have a populace so controled by American Idol and Survivor that they don't even notice as one more chip is removed from their civil rights...

we have a set of politicians who are more worried about their next election hopes than they are defending our constitution...

we have a group of religious zealots who can't see beyond their own narrow view of the world to even follow the teachings of their own god...

we have an upper elite so greedy that they'd rather sit atop the rubble of our own economy than put forth the policies to rebuild and strengthen it...

Fuck... you name it and we've got it. Above all else, the vast majority of American citizens either don't care, haven't noticed or are too busy just trying to survive to do anything about it.

(edited to delete a hell of a lot of ranting here)

[RoyGBiv]

11. Yes ...

The uncomfortable truth that few modern Americans are willing to face is that the "good old days" weren't that good. Lynchings were a fairly popular social occasion at the time of WWI, for example, if we want to mention a total lack of respect for human rights not directly connected with a war.

I won't run too far with this and risk offending some people's sensibilities who quite rightly feel betrayed and disgusted with the events of today and these past many years, but I do think it is time people stopped whining, took stock of what they have, and think of positive ways to effect change. WEB DuBois and friends had no friends at any level in any institution of government when they took up their crusade against lynching. When they were actually able to find allies that allowed them to have the matter at least heard in the court of public opinion, they were shouted down and threatened and at times directly and physically attacked. They suffered a thousand disappointments and attended the funerals of hundreds of murdered victims. Did they give up?

[Capn Sunshine]

12. Don't you think comparing a fake war to a worldwide conflagrations is

well, "inappropriate" to say the least?
Granted, there were severe abuses of civil liberties and the veterans of that horror show.

But I just don't think that a unilateral invasion by one country remotely approaches the level of a World War 1-or 2.

[RoyGBiv]

15. He wasn't comparing the "wars"

He was, mainly, comparing the infringements upon civil liberties during the two eras. That kind of comparison is not only appropriate but necessary to understand just what we risk to lose.

[bigtree]

13. the problem Hypno, is that we resolved those intrusions with Court rulings

Woodrow Wilson urged legislative action against those who had "sought to bring the authority and 'good name' of the Government into contempt." He worried in his declaration of war, about "spies and criminal intrigues everywhere afoot" which had filled "our unsuspecting communities and even our offices of government."

http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/firstln/wilson.html


During his presidency more than 2,000 American citizens were jailed for protest, advocacy, and dissent, with the support of a compliant Supreme Court.

http://www.aclu.org//safefree/general/17259pub20030508.html


The Wilson-era assaults on civil liberties; Schenck v. U.S.; Frohwerk v. U.S. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=249&invol=204); Debs v. U.S., Abrams v. U.S., were ratified by Supreme Court decisions which asserted that free speech in wartime was a hindrance to the efforts of peace.


Justices Brennan and Holmes wrote the majority opinion which was phrased as the new "clear and present danger" test in which they argued: "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."

http://www.pbs.org/now/printable/classroom_courtcases_print.html


Justice Holmes said, "We think it necessary to add to what has been said in Schenck v. United States . . . only that the First Amendment while prohibiting legislation against free speech as such cannot have been, and obviously was not, intended to give immunity for every possible use of language. We venture to believe that neither Hamilton nor Madison, nor any other competent person then or later, ever supposed that to make criminal the counseling of a murder within the jurisdiction of Congress would be an unconstitutional interference with free speech."

http://www.krusch.com/real/supreme.html


The Court wanted to draw a clear line between free speech and harmful speech, but their reasoning was blunt. The effect of the ruling was a stifling of protest and dissent.


In the case of Frohwerk, the Supreme Court used the Schnek decision to uphold the convictions of two newspaper workers for publishing articles which condemned the war.

The Schnek decision was also used by the Supreme Court in 1919 to uphold the conviction of Eugene Debs under the Espionage Act for giving a public address condemning capitalism, advocating socialism, and speaking in defense of those who had been imprisoned for exercising their free speech rights. Similarly, in the case of Abrams, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction for distributing antiwar leaflets.

Eventually Holmes would move away from his ruling on Schnek in his dissent in the Court's upholding of Abrams. Justice Holmes worried in his minority opinion that, "A patriot might think that we were wasting money on aeroplanes, or making more cannon of a certain kind than we needed, and might advocate curtailment with success."

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/43.htm


In the 1917 case of Masses Publishing v Patten, at the beginning of WWI, Masses Publishing had argued against the postmaster general's refusal to allow the distribution of its journal which attacked capitalism. Justice Learned Hand had ruled that the draft violated the First Amendment. Hand said that, ". . . the government may prosecute words that are "triggers to action" but not words that are "keys of persuasion." A reversal promptly followed his decision.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/clear&pdanger.htm



Not until 1969, would the Supreme Court unanimously abandon Schnek standard to overturn the conviction in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio; in support of the free speech rights of a member of the Ku Klux Klan. The Brandenburg ruling braided the "clear and present danger" standard with Justice Hand's 'incitement test."

A footnote for the majority opinion observes that, "Statutes affecting the right of assembly, like those touching on freedom of speech, must observe the established distinctions between mere advocacy and incitement to imminent lawless action," for, it stated, ". . . the right of peaceable assembly is a right (related) to those of free speech and free press, and is equally fundamental."

The reversal of the Klanman's conviction affirmed the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

The broad decision in Brandenburg gave future courts room for the passage of the many protections of public expression and advocacy which we rely on today in our dissent and protest.

Justice Douglas wrote in 1958 that: "Advocacy that is no way brigaded with action should always be protected by the First Amendment. That protection should extend even to the actions we despise."

[The Magistrate]

14. Much Worse And More Widespread, Sir

Than anything we have seen today so far....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Crunchy Frog]

18. In an absolute sense, yes.

Even without the impositions during the war, things were still worse if you look in an absolute sense. Many of the rights and freedoms that we take for granted now, had not yet been attained. Women had no vote at all. Black people often had no vote for all practical purposes. It was perfectly legal to discriminate against people on the basis of race, ethnic origin, or religion. Gays were considered to be suffering from mental illnes and were treated as such.

If you go back a few decades earlier, a large percentage of the American population were being held in slavery with absolutely no rights whatsoever. Men could treat their wives and their daughters as if they were little more than property. Our nation was engaged in an actual campaign of genocide.

That's why I like to evaluate things within the context of times in which they were or are actually happening. For most of its history, this nation has been slowly but steadily moving forward with a gradual increase and expansion of rights and freedoms. Even though there were fits and starts, the overall trend was in that direction. What's happening right now IMO is a genuine reversal of this overall trend, rather than a temporary setback, and that is what I find truly alarming. Looking at it strictly within the context of the last few decades, and in relation to the magnitude of the "war" that we're fighting, I believe the current situation to be far worse than what was happening during WW1.

We're not even in a real war. The "War on Terror" is a "war" against a tactic. It's no more a real war than the "War on Poverty" or the "War on Cancer".

The war against Islamic extremism is a war on an abstraction, and one that doesn't even have an embodiment in a state the way that both fascism and communism did.

We're not even fighting a real war in Iraq. If there ever was such a war, it ended three weeks after the invasion, when the government that we went to war to remove collapsed. What we have going on now is what was predicted by all sane people prior to the invasion, even including Poppy Bush, namely, an occupation of indefinite duration in a bitterly hostile land(Poppy's words).

In my book, all arguments based on the "it's not so bad right now, things were far worse back during WW1/WW2/the Civil War/the Dark Ages/the Inquisition/the Black Death miss the point.

[0rganism]

19. If that's how far back you have to go to find something comparable...

...oh well, you know the rest.

Things have only just begun to suck. When the crackdown really starts in about 5 years, we'll be wishing for the good old days of the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams.