To promote nationalism and restrict dissent, President Wilson commissioned the Sedition Act purposed to protect the United States during its participation in World War 1. The Sedition Act prohibited and imposed penalties that were very harsh against anyone that would falsify information and interfere with war, insult the government, military, constitution, and flag, obstruct production of war materials, defend an or teach any of these acts (Skibinski, 2016). The penalties included a 20 year-long sentence, or a 10 thousand dollars fair, or both. President Wilson felt that it was necessary to impose these penalties through the Sedition Act to reduce dissent. These decisions were required to control the public, especially during a war period, seeing as spreading of contention would have potentially led to defeat in the battle and contributed to a political and citizen divide.
Debs and Schenck were not anti-American. Instead, they were socialists. They were Americans who believed in a different political and economic system, where the rights to trading, moving, and making wealth would be owned by workers because they are in the front-line making things happen, as opposed to private owners (Newton-Matza, 2017). These two socialists broke the law. While the constitution protects people’s right to speech, the freedom was constrained by the danger that could have potentially riled up the public; thus, it presented a possible threat.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The ruling in document D states that there would be no protection for a man that shouts fire in a theater to cause panic. It rules that if words are uttered in circumstances that they may create danger, then it is ruled out as a criminal act, and Congress has a right to prevent that from happening.
The critics of WWI were not anti-American. They were socialists, and the only difference is that they desired a different political and economic system. They believed that the political leaders were leading the United States into war to make it safe and democratic, but to serve their interests (Newton-Matza, 2017). They argued that they went to the bench to serve interests that kept them in power “…but to serve the interests that place them and keep them where they are. The socialists wanted the land, property, and trading rights to be accorded to people who work for them and not private owners. They were not anti-American in defending what they thought was right.
References
Newton-Matza, M. (2017). The Espionage and Sedition Acts: World War I and the Image of Civil Liberties . Routledge.
Skibinski, N. (2016). Literature Review of the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918.
