Ben Shapiro asks Should We Prosecute Sedition?
The question was prompted by some comments, many of which were over-the-top in my opinion (if not wholly erroneous), made by Al Gore in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, I would categorize some of the quotes I have heard and read as extremely irresponsible. Nonetheless, the notion that Gore should be prosecuted for such statement is not only ridiculous, it is a chilling.
In defense of prosecuting statements he doesn’t like, Shapiro then launches into the following dazzling display of historical connections:
Under the Espionage Act of 1917, opponents of World War I were routinely prosecuted, and the Supreme Court routinely upheld their convictions. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes rightly wrote, “When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.” The Allies won World War I.During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment of hundreds of thousands of Japanese-Americans, as well as allowing the prosecution and/or deportation of those who opposed the war. The Allies won World War II.
During the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court repeatedly upheld the free speech rights of war opponents, whether those opponents distributed leaflets depicting the rape of the Statue of Liberty or wore jackets emblazoned with the slogan “F— the Draft.” America lost the Vietnam War.
Oh, my: where to begin? This is some pretty lousy reasoning in terms of causality.
All that is clear from the above list is that it is possible to win wars whilst abusing civil liberties on the home front, and, conversely, lose a war while allowing free expression at home. The notion that Viet Nam was lost because the Supremes let folks where t-shirts with obscenities on them is absurd in the extreme.
Finally, I think Mr. Shapiro should read the early history of the republic and that abomination known as the “Alien and Sedition Act.” How anyone could argue that it is good idea to give the government the power to prosecute those who would question the administration in power is beyond me. Essentially that is asking that the First Amendment be put in a strongbox and dropped in the Pacific. And he isn’t just talking about absurd statements made abroad at Saudi-sponsored summits, he finds it offensive that anyone might have suggested that the president lied, or, that his policies might fail. One of his examples of speech that he seems to find seditious is as follows:
Howard Dean, the head of the DNC, averred in December that the “idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.”
And such a statement is a threat to our national security in what way?
There are times I have to say that I wonder how people can twist their minds around the notion that the best way to protect the American way of life is to subvert it.
Most astonishing.
h/t: Matthew Shugart.
February 22nd, 2024 at 3:36 pm
It is probably worth noting that WWI/WWII were declared wars, while Vietnam and the WOT/Iraq are not, so even if our Constitutional rights were somehow chilled during war, shouldn’t Congress have to make some type of affirmative statement? And somehow we won an undeclared Cold War while still allowing the occasional dissent at home and abroad.
Again, the question must be asked: Would this person have the same opinion under President Hillary and if Dick Cheney said something “objectionable” to the adminstration? Somehow I doubt it.
February 23rd, 2024 at 12:04 am
I don’t think the argument for prosecuting Al Gore for sedition holsa water, but as to the general question, if the person is exciting violence possibly.