Search Results

The Sedition Act and the Assault on Freedoms of Press and Speech: The Sitting Supreme Court Justices and the Trials

Wendell Bird

in Press and Speech Under Assault: The Early Supreme Court Justices, the Sedition Act of 1798, and the Campaign against Dissent

Chapter 6 summarizes the fourteen recognized prosecutions of newspaper editors, politicians, and other citizens under the Sedition Act of 1798. It is the first book-length discussion of the Sedition ... More

Chapter 6 summarizes the fourteen recognized prosecutions of newspaper editors, politicians, and other citizens under the Sedition Act of 1798. It is the first book-length discussion of the Sedition Act in sixty years. Chapter 6 identifies the reasoning of six early justices of the Supreme Court who supported the constitutionality of the Sedition Act, and the roles of three of those justices in presiding over prosecutions under the Act. It shows the tactical timing of prosecutions by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering to hinder the opposition Republican Party’s ability to influence elections. Though all other states are generally described as rejecting the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and their repudiation of the Alien and Sedition Acts, only half did (some without supporting those Acts), while among the other half of the states some supported the resolutions (the Tennessee and Georgia Resolutions), some deadlocked, and some intentionally did not oppose.Less

The Sedition Act and the Assault on Freedoms of Press and Speech: The Remaining Supreme Court Justices on the Sedition Act

Wendell Bird

in Press and Speech Under Assault: The Early Supreme Court Justices, the Sedition Act of 1798, and the Campaign against Dissent

Chapter 8 discusses the other six early justices of the Supreme Court and their apparent opposition to the constitutionality of the Sedition Act, further stating that the initial justices and the ... More

Chapter 8 discusses the other six early justices of the Supreme Court and their apparent opposition to the constitutionality of the Sedition Act, further stating that the initial justices and the successor justices not only divided, but divided disproportionately. The justices were John Jay, John Rutledge, James Wilson, Thomas Johnson, and Alfred Moore, with John Blair being a possible exception. While a nearly even split of the early justices (all Federalists) is surprising, the chapter places it in the context of an equally unrecognized division of the Federalist Party, where a significant minority also opposed the constitutionality of the Sedition Act.Less

Responsible Speech: Rights in a Culture of Obligation

Christopher Capozzola

in Uncle Sam Wants You: World War I and the Making of the Modern American Citizen

This chapter focuses on civil liberties during World War I. It shows that during America's first world war, a broad but tentative and fragmented coalition developed around the concept of civil ... More

This chapter focuses on civil liberties during World War I. It shows that during America's first world war, a broad but tentative and fragmented coalition developed around the concept of civil liberties, using rights as a weapon of defense. Americans resisted obligation's coercive aspects and gave voice to a politics that imagined the citizen first and foremost as an individual and as a bearer of rights. They formed social networks, voluntary associations, and political institutions dedicated to realizing this vision. Out of this wartime effort emerged the American Civil Liberties Union, modern First Amendment jurisprudence, and understandings of individual rights in popular political culture that would transform American politics in the 20th century. The trial of Jane Addams, the Espionage Act, the Sedition Act, and the Nonpartisan League are discussed.Less

The Sedition Act Controversy

in Free Expression and Democracy in America: A History

As President George Washington and his administration tackled the problems confronting the young nation, they began implementing and testing the structures of the new constitutional system. The ... More

As President George Washington and his administration tackled the problems confronting the young nation, they began implementing and testing the structures of the new constitutional system. The Constitution, they learned, was not a smooth-running machine. The framers had hoped that a qualified elite would be elected and appointed to national offices, and would coalesce around a common good. While the framers had expected factionalism, they had not foreseen the imbroglios of the 1790s. These disputes became so ferocious that the Federalists, so recently united in support of constitutional ratification, were rent apart into two opposed “protoparties,” the Republicans and the Federalists. This chapter discusses republican democracy in the 1970s; the Alien and Sedition acts; and consequences of the Sedition Act prosecutions.Less

Extreme Speech and American Press Freedoms

David J. Bodney

in Extreme Speech and Democracy

This chapter discusses the American constitutional framework for addressing the challenge of extreme speech, with particular emphasis on the rights of the press. It argues that American media's usage ... More

This chapter discusses the American constitutional framework for addressing the challenge of extreme speech, with particular emphasis on the rights of the press. It argues that American media's usage of extreme speech is regulated less by laws than by market factors and evolving norms of civility. Today more than ever, the media endeavours to produce what sells. Advertisers are matched with audiences to maximize profits in a rapidly changing media marketplace. Adaptation to the World Wide Web presents a serious challenge to traditional media outlets.Less

Free Expression in the Nineteenth Century to 1865

in Free Expression and Democracy in America: A History

This chapter examines the status of free expression through the middle decades of the nineteenth century. The Sedition Act crisis arose within an overarching and decade-long dispute about the nature ... More

This chapter examines the status of free expression through the middle decades of the nineteenth century. The Sedition Act crisis arose within an overarching and decade-long dispute about the nature of republican democracy. Republicans invoked the tradition of dissent as they asserted a right to speak their minds, to criticize the government. Federalists relied upon the tradition of suppression as they sought to silence the voices of (temporary) outsiders, whom the Federalists viewed as a factional and corrupt party. And Republicans and Federalists both seized upon different aspects of the extant law: the doctrine of seditious libel, the Zengerian reforms, the constitutional limits on congressional power, and the implications of the first amendment.Less

1798 (2): How to Think about the Sedition Act

in A Community Built on Words: The Constitution in History and Politics

The central point of contention in national politics during 1798 involved foreign policy. Revolutionary France's overbearing and erratic behavior had brought Franco-American relations to the breaking ... More

The central point of contention in national politics during 1798 involved foreign policy. Revolutionary France's overbearing and erratic behavior had brought Franco-American relations to the breaking point, with the generally Francophile Republicans divided and disheartened, and many of the Federalists convinced that the Republic was in mortal peril of a French invasion or subversion from within. In the spring and summer following Calder, the Federalist-controlled Congress took under consideration a battery of laws intended, as Federalists saw it, to put the country in an appropriate state of defense. Among the bills eventually enacted was the famous (or infamous) Sedition Act of July 14, 1798, which prompted the first great debate over the interpretation of the first amendment. (Collectively the statutes were known as the Alien and Sedition Acts and one of the other laws, the Alien Act of June 25, also evoked significant constitutional discussions.)Less

General Introduction: Free Speech, Democracy, and the Suppression of Extreme Speech Past and Present

James Weinstein and Ivan Hare

in Extreme Speech and Democracy

In addition to introducing the general topics covered in the volume, this chapter sketches the ambivalent relationship between free speech and democracy that has existed since the birth of modern ... More

In addition to introducing the general topics covered in the volume, this chapter sketches the ambivalent relationship between free speech and democracy that has existed since the birth of modern democracy. From the beginning it was recognized that the right of the people to criticize governments, laws, and social conditions is inherent in the very concept of rule by the people. But also from the outset democratic governments have claimed the power to limit criticism deemed so extreme as to endanger other basic societal values. For instance, in 1798 Congress passed the Sedition Act; during World War I the Allies imprisoned anti-war protestors; and in subsequent decades these democracies suppressed advocacy of anarchism, fascism, and communism. The verdict of history is that most of this speech suppression was contrary to the right of people to express dissenting views in a free and democratic society. Will history render a similar judgment on contemporary suppression of extreme speech? Or is this suppression justified because it aims to protect interests of individuals rather than interests of the state?Less

The Sedition Act of 1798 and the First First Amendment Crisis

in No Law: Intellectual Property in the Image of an Absolute First Amendment

In the summer of 1798 Congress passed and President Adams signed into law a battery of four statutes intended to safeguard domestic security. Three of the statutes dealt with the threats perceived to ... More

In the summer of 1798 Congress passed and President Adams signed into law a battery of four statutes intended to safeguard domestic security. Three of the statutes dealt with the threats perceived to exist from the immigrant population. This chapter is concerned with the fourth, the Sedition Act passed on 4 July 1798. Section 2 of the Sedition Act made it a crime for any person to “write, print, utter or publish, or … cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or … 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….” Unlike other parts of the Act, this provision sparked the first great debate in American history over the meaning of the First Amendment. The chapter examines the debates over what the Sedition Act says about the First Amendment and its interpretation.Less

Sedition

Timothy Zick

in The First Amendment in the Trump Era

This chapter examines the concept of “sedition” and efforts to suppress dissent and disloyalty. President Adams used the Sedition Act of 1798 to prosecute and jail his critics and political ... More

This chapter examines the concept of “sedition” and efforts to suppress dissent and disloyalty. President Adams used the Sedition Act of 1798 to prosecute and jail his critics and political opponents. That episode ultimately revealed the “central meaning of the First Amendment”—that Americans must be free to criticize their public officials, even if that criticism is often caustic and unpleasant. Federal and state officials have not proposed reviving the crime of seditious libel. However, several critics of the Trump administration have come under fire and suffered tangible consequences for openly criticizing the president and the Trump administration. As in prior eras, recent efforts to punish sedition and disloyalty pose serious threats to democratic self-government and political discourse.Less

War, Media, and the Security of State and Capital

Lee Grieveson

in Cinema's Military Industrial Complex

This chapter, by Lee Grieveson, explores the U.S. state’s use of cinema and its regulation of media and communication during World War I and in its immediate aftermath. It examines, in particular, ... More

This chapter, by Lee Grieveson, explores the U.S. state’s use of cinema and its regulation of media and communication during World War I and in its immediate aftermath. It examines, in particular, the establishment and functioning of the Committee on Public Information (CPI) and state orchestration of new forms of war funding. It explores also the legal regulation of communication and media encoded in the Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1917 and 1918, overwhelmingly targeted at socialist and pacifist opposition to the war. The latter parts of the chapter consider the structural influence of this conjuncture on subsequent uses of cinema and media and the regulation of dissidence.Less

An Imperfect War

Gerard N. Magliocca

in Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington

Chapter 5 recounts Bushrod Washington’s appointment to the Supreme Court and George Washington’s death. Bushrod’s relationship with his uncle deepened after George retired from the presidency. After ... More

Chapter 5 recounts Bushrod Washington’s appointment to the Supreme Court and George Washington’s death. Bushrod’s relationship with his uncle deepened after George retired from the presidency. After a short-lived campaign for a seat in Congress, Bushrod was named to the Court by President John Adams in 1798. The chapter then provides some basics about how the Supreme Court functioned and about the personalities of the other justices before turning to the two controversies that dominated Washington’s early years as a justice: the Sedition Act and the tensions between the United States and France that nearly led to war.Less

The Contours of Repression

David M. Struthers

in The World in a City: Multiethnic Radicalism in Early Twentieth-Century Los Angeles

This chapter examines the World War One period in which the federal, state, and local governments in the United States, in addition to non-state actors, created one of the most severe eras of ... More

This chapter examines the World War One period in which the federal, state, and local governments in the United States, in addition to non-state actors, created one of the most severe eras of political repression in United States history. The Espionage Act, the Sedition Act, changes to immigration law at the federal level, and state criminal syndicalism laws served as the legal basis for repression. The Partido Liberal Mexicano (PLM), Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), and other anarchists took different paths in this era. Some faced lengthy prison sentences, some went underground, while others crossed international borders to flee repression and continue organizing. This chapter examines the repression of radical movements and organizing continuities that sustained the movement into the 1920s.Less

Two North Carolinians, Same Goal, Different Approaches: An Examination of the Political Lives and Philosophies of Nathaniel Macon and Archibald D. Murphey

Troy L. Kickler

in North Carolina's Revolutionary Founders

The volume’s final substantive essay compares and contrasts the public careers of two of the most important members of that generation of North Carolina politicians who rose to prominence after the ... More

The volume’s final substantive essay compares and contrasts the public careers of two of the most important members of that generation of North Carolina politicians who rose to prominence after the founding era. Archibald D. Murphey was an Orange County judge and state senator who became known as a champion of constitutional reform and state support for education and internal improvements. Nathaniel Macon served 24 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and 13 years in the Senate and acquired a reputation as an archconsevative. This essay suggests traditional accounts may exaggerate their differences. Macon’s opposition to the Sedition Bill of 1798 showed a civil libertarian streak. Both men owned slaves and neither supported any significant steps to end slavery. Both men supported the University of North Carolina. Their differences stemmed in part from the different realms in which they operated. As a member of Congress, Macon felt compelled to address the constitutional limits of federal power, issues which Murphey, as a state politician, did not have to confront.Less

“Salutary Collisions” and Multiple Discourses: A Farmer, a Lawyer, and Two Unknown Democrats

Robert W. T. Martin

in Government by Dissent: Protest, Resistance, and Radical Democratic Thought in the Early American Republic

This chapter examines the views of four lesser-known theorists about the theory of dissentient democracy, all of whom emphasized the positive contribution of any and all dissent: John Thomson, ... More

This chapter examines the views of four lesser-known theorists about the theory of dissentient democracy, all of whom emphasized the positive contribution of any and all dissent: John Thomson, William Manning, Tunis Wortman, and a newspaper essayist with the pseudonym “Numa.” The chapter begins by focusing on the protests against the United States' Jay Treaty with Great Britain, proposed by Chief Justice John Jay, along with the renewed culture of deference and the Sedition Act it fostered. It then considers George James Warner's 1797 Fourth of July Oration delivered to a host of Jeffersonian New York clubs, including the Tammany Society. Finally, it explores Numa's theory of dissent, Thomson's free speech absolutism, Wortman's arguments about the role of government in shaping public opinion, and Manning's model of dissentient democracy.Less

Sexing the Internet: Censorship, Surveillance, and the Body Politic(s) of Malaysia

Heike Jensen, Jac sm Kee, Gayathry Venkiteswaran, and Sonia Randhawa

in Access Contested: Security, Identity, and Resistance in Asian Cyberspace

This chapter presents a case study of Malaysia to illustrate gender bias in digital freedom of expression and privacy. Methods of censoring women’s point of view, including their structural and ... More

This chapter presents a case study of Malaysia to illustrate gender bias in digital freedom of expression and privacy. Methods of censoring women’s point of view, including their structural and ideological exclusion from the public sphere and the use of sexist language, along with sexual violence threats, are presented. The Malaysian government, through the use of the Sedition Act, Internal Security Act, and Defamation Act, has tried to restrict the use of content and speech online , which breaches the government’s initial promise of a censorship-free Internet, resulting in the merging of the communication sector with the country’s Ministry of Information. Materials related to religion and sexuality published online are also subject to scrutiny by the Malaysian government.Less

The Constitution during War and Peace (1917–45)

Steven A. Steinbach, Maeva Marcus, and Robert Cohen

in With Liberty and Justice for All?: The Constitution in the Classroom

The crowning achievement of feminists during the interwar years—securing the right to vote for women—would hardly have been possible without its far-more-despised constitutional companion, the ... More

The crowning achievement of feminists during the interwar years—securing the right to vote for women—would hardly have been possible without its far-more-despised constitutional companion, the Eighteenth Amendment on Prohibition. So argues Julie Suk, Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law, in an essay that highlights the unexpected interplay between these two constitutional provisions—both the product of lengthy, popular, grass-roots struggles propelled by women; both revolutionary in their own way. Other constitutional moments during this era include the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment; the unsuccessful proposed amendments to secure equal rights for women and to prohibit child labor; and the unbridled growth of the power of the federal government. In addition to women’s rights, the primary sources highlight the suppression of free speech during World War I, the eugenics movement, and the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II.Less

1821: The Attorney General and the Rule of Law

in A Community Built on Words: The Constitution in History and Politics

William Wirt was one of the greatest public lawyers of the early Republic. As a young Republican lawyer he was a member of the defense team representing the defendant in a notorious Sedition Act ... More

William Wirt was one of the greatest public lawyers of the early Republic. As a young Republican lawyer he was a member of the defense team representing the defendant in a notorious Sedition Act prosecution, United States v. Callender, and later sat at the opposite table as one of the prosecutors in United States v. Burr. In later years he served briefly as U.S. attorney in Virginia and then for almost twelve years (1817–1829) as attorney general of the United States, the longest period anyone has held that office. Wirt did as much to shape the position of attorney general as anyone before or since, and long enjoyed a reputation, as an early-twentieth-century court put it, as a “learned...great and able lawyer.” One of Wirt's central accomplishments was his regularization of the attorney general's role as the executive branch's chief interpreter of the law.Less

1800: Marshall and the Role of the Political Branches

in A Community Built on Words: The Constitution in History and Politics

For less than six months, between December 1799 and May 1800, John Marshall served in the U.S. House of Representatives. Marshall's enduring fame rests, of course, on his much longer tenure as chief ... More

For less than six months, between December 1799 and May 1800, John Marshall served in the U.S. House of Representatives. Marshall's enduring fame rests, of course, on his much longer tenure as chief justice of the United States, but during his brief time in the House Marshall showed legislative gifts that, in a different career, would have marked him as a great legislator. With consummate political skill, he labored to bridge the gaps separating the moderate Federalists of the southern and middle states from the High Federalists of the northeast, and to ease the severe alienation between many congressional Federalists and President John Adams, whom Marshall strongly supported. At the same time, Marshall was willing to risk evoking personal and even party disapproval in the interests of what he saw as the greater good: he worked with the Republicans on the highly contentious and generally partisan issue of the Sedition Act.Less