The Sedition Act
Reader comment on article: From the Halls of Academia

Submitted by Darryl (United States), Jan 3, 2003 at 14:56

In 1918 the Sedition Act was passed as a response to left wing criticism of Government policy and involvement in WWI. During this time the October Revolution was having immense repercussions within the US itself and threatened the foundations of our government.

The Revolution in Russia convinced many people in the US that capitalism was an evil and defunct notion and that the US should have its own revolution. During this period there were many that wrote and campaigned vigorously for such action to occur. These people believed in the notion that socialism was the champion of freedom.

The main problem was that the US was getting ready to enter a war and the socialists were criticizing US policy. We know from the Vietnam War what can happen to a country that does not have support at home, and how much momentum a few dissenters can cause if left alone over time. We also know from the collapse of the USSR that socialism does NOT work.

To put all of this together and make sense of this, we must look closely at what is happening here in our own country and abroad.

1) We have been brutally and viciously attacked by outside forces.
2) Countries such as Iraq, North Korea, and Iran covertly support these forces
3) The same divisiveness exist in Academia America that existed in 1918
4) We are engaged in a war which we cannot afford to lose
5) The left wing propaganda from academia is causing cracks in a united front
6) A divided front will (just like in Vietnam) cause us to lose this war

There are those that will point out that in WWII a sedition act was not necessary. However, it is pretty clear that at that time the American people realized that they were at war and that the only thing to do was win it. No sedition act was necessary, and we won the war.

There have been references in this article to the Sedition Act of 1918. Look deeper at the cause of why things are similar. Academia does not recognize the danger that America faces, and wishes to deal with these threats using sanctions and diplomacy. They are in complete denial that socialism is a failed concept, and that we are at war with those that will use any means to destroy us. We must come together, present a unified front, and defeat this enemy. We should discuss our shortcomings after danger has passed, not while we are at war.

I know many educated people in this country that do not believe Iraq wants anything more than power. Power in the Middle East comes in the form of oil. If the Iraq develops one nuclear weapon, who will stop him from taking Kuwait again? When Hitler knew he had lost the war he made Germany pay for it. He never sued for peace and forced the destruction of Germany. Saddam will do the same. If he can't have the oil he will destroy it.

This will hurt the Kuwaitis ability to produce income and be a viable country. And it will also damage the US's security. At the current time the US is not in a position to move to alternative fuels nation wide. Our military is dependant on fossil fuel. Given that fact that we are in a war, how dangerous is it to have a reduction in fuel supplies?

Academia cries out "Sedition Act" to cover up the fact that they are subverting the war effort, and creating a dangerous situation here at home. Many of us realize that this is intentional, and wonder why our "American" professors are trying to prevent us from persecuting this war. We truly wonder where their loyalties lie. We wonder why they support socialism, and our enemies. "Sedition Act" they cry. I believe this is little more than an ad homenum strategy, but I don't buy it.

Instead, I fear that the utopian desires of academia override their judgment. I believe they feel if we just close our eyes tap our heels together, and wish hard enough eventually we will ALL be whisked away to a utopian Kansas where everyone will receive according to their need, and from each according to their ability.

If my view is not taken, I am good with that, but before the "all knowing" professors in academia tell us more about sedition, do bother to read the act.

16 May, 1918
The U.S. Sedition Act

United States, Statutes at Large, Washington, D.C., 1918, Vol. XL, pp 553 ff.
A portion of the amendment to Section 3 of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917.

SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....


Darryl

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited, before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments.