…don’t they? Well, they love it when it applies to Danish newspapers publishing anti-Muslim cartoons with the explicit purpose of mocking Islam, but they aren’t such big fans when it comes to, say, verbally criticizing our elected administration. Because that’s treason.
It is now considered bad form to criticize those who commit seditious acts against the United States. Challenging the patriotism of a traitor draws more ire than engaging in treasonable activities. Calling out those who undermine our nation creates more of a backlash than actually undermining our nation.
Ben cites a few quotes from Al Gore, John Kerry and Jim McDermott as examples of “sedition.” Now, you’d think that a Harvard law student would have a dictionary handy, and could look up the word “sedition” — because a pretty key component involves an intent to incite “rebellion agaisnt the authority of a state.” That isn’t what any of these three men did — they criticized U.S. policy, which, given the existence of the First Amendment, is a pretty fair thing for them to do.
At some point, opposition must be considered disloyal. At some point, the American people must say “enough.” At some point, Republicans in Congress must stop delicately tiptoeing with regard to sedition and must pass legislation to prosecute such sedition.
Things like this should frighten all of us. Here we have a person arguing, in all seriousness, that we should suspend our basic First Amendment rights, and Republicans should take measures to criminally prosecute anyone who speaks out against the war or the government. These are not American values, and this should deeply offend people at all degrees of the political spectrum.
“Freedom of speech!” the American Civil Liberties Union will protest. Before we buy into the slogan, we must remember our history. President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and allowed governmental officials to arrest Rep. Clement Vallandigham after Vallandigham called the Civil War “cruel” and “wicked,” shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers, and had members of the Maryland legislature placed in prison to prevent Maryland’s secession. The Union won the Civil War.
And historians have certainly been critical of that aspect of Lincoln’s presidency. While I’m definitely not a proponent of habeas suspension, Ben — as a frigging Harvard Law student — should know that suspending the writ of habeas corpus is different from Congress passing a law allowing for the prosecution of people who speak out against the administration.
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.
Well, it’s a little more complicated than that, but Ben is confident that his readers are idiots and will swallow his re-vamped version of history. And I should add that the argument of, “Well they did it before” isn’t exactly the best one. Take Japanese internment, for example: They did it before, but it doesn’t make it right.
Except, oh wait, according to Ben it does:
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.
Consider the implications here: We interned an entire race of people, and that’s why we won the war. This is an example we should repeat.
Nervous yet?
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.
I love this: America won WWI and WWII because we squelched free speech and prosecuted opponents; we lost Vietnam because we allowed protests. Right. I get the feeling that Ben would be much happier living in, say, Iran, where no one publicly speaks ill of the government, pornography is under control, and that “girls gone wild” culture that offended Ben so much he wrote a book about it just doesn’t exist. I’ll even pay his airfare if he promises never to come back.