WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.220 Imagine waking up tomorrow, pouring yourself 00:00:03.220 --> 00:00:06.099 a cup of coffee and just checking the news. You 00:00:06.099 --> 00:00:08.359 read a story about a recent government decision 00:00:08.359 --> 00:00:11.500 or, I don't know, a military deployment and you 00:00:11.500 --> 00:00:13.669 strongly disagree with it. So you do what millions 00:00:13.669 --> 00:00:16.370 of people do every single day. You go online 00:00:16.370 --> 00:00:18.789 and write a highly critical post. Right, just 00:00:18.789 --> 00:00:21.890 a standard reaction. Exactly. You use some colorful 00:00:21.890 --> 00:00:24.870 language. You express your contempt for the administration. 00:00:25.269 --> 00:00:27.609 Maybe you criticize the flag or the armed forces. 00:00:28.250 --> 00:00:30.750 Now imagine that just a few hours later, federal 00:00:30.750 --> 00:00:33.789 agents are knocking on your front door. And you 00:00:33.789 --> 00:00:36.429 aren't just facing a fine or a slap on the wrist. 00:00:36.770 --> 00:00:40.070 You are facing 20 years in a federal penitentiary 00:00:40.070 --> 00:00:41.869 simply for the words you published. I mean, it 00:00:41.869 --> 00:00:44.030 sounds like the plot of a dystopian novel, right? 00:00:44.229 --> 00:00:46.649 Something entirely divorced from our modern understanding 00:00:46.649 --> 00:00:48.770 of the First Amendment. It sounds completely 00:00:48.770 --> 00:00:50.789 foreign to everything we are taught about freedom 00:00:50.789 --> 00:00:53.850 of speech. But here is the reality for you, the 00:00:53.850 --> 00:00:57.210 listener. This is not fiction. This was the actual 00:00:57.210 --> 00:01:00.289 enforceable law of the land in the United States. 00:01:00.479 --> 00:01:02.899 just over a century ago. Yeah, it really was. 00:01:03.240 --> 00:01:05.239 Today, we are pulling our information from a 00:01:05.239 --> 00:01:08.060 really comprehensive Wikipedia article detailing 00:01:08.060 --> 00:01:11.400 the Sedition Act of 1918. And our mission for 00:01:11.400 --> 00:01:14.719 this deep dive is to explore exactly how quickly 00:01:14.719 --> 00:01:17.060 civil liberties and free speech can be entirely 00:01:17.060 --> 00:01:20.099 suspended during a national crisis. We want to 00:01:20.099 --> 00:01:22.579 look at who gets caught in the crossfire of these 00:01:22.579 --> 00:01:25.019 sweeping laws, and perhaps most surprisingly, 00:01:25.519 --> 00:01:28.079 how a piece of legislation this extreme ever 00:01:28.079 --> 00:01:29.739 made it through Congress in the first place. 00:01:29.920 --> 00:01:32.219 And I think today's deep dive is critical because 00:01:32.219 --> 00:01:35.560 we aren't just looking at a dusty forgotten piece 00:01:35.560 --> 00:01:38.840 of legislative history. We are analyzing a master 00:01:38.840 --> 00:01:41.200 class, really a real world case study in the 00:01:41.200 --> 00:01:43.939 sheer fragility of civil liberties. It demonstrates 00:01:43.939 --> 00:01:45.920 how rapidly the foundation of constitutional 00:01:45.920 --> 00:01:48.500 rights can shift when a society is gripped by 00:01:48.500 --> 00:01:51.760 fear, conflict and this overwhelming desire for 00:01:51.760 --> 00:01:54.400 national unity. OK, let's unpack this to really 00:01:54.400 --> 00:01:56.379 understand the Sedition Act of 1918. We have 00:01:56.379 --> 00:01:58.319 to look at the baseline. So the United States 00:01:58.319 --> 00:02:00.379 was already deep into the First World War. And 00:02:00.379 --> 00:02:03.840 the year prior, in 1917, the government had passed 00:02:03.840 --> 00:02:06.459 the Espionage Act. Right, the precursor. Yeah. 00:02:06.719 --> 00:02:09.620 And that initial act was primarily designed to 00:02:09.620 --> 00:02:11.939 stop outright interference with the war effort. 00:02:12.460 --> 00:02:14.560 Lawmakers wanted to disrupt anything that would 00:02:14.560 --> 00:02:17.400 harm military recruitment or attempt to aid a 00:02:17.400 --> 00:02:20.520 nation at war with the U .S. Which, you know, 00:02:20.539 --> 00:02:22.479 that makes a certain tactical sense during a 00:02:22.479 --> 00:02:26.340 major global conflict. But by 1918, lawmakers 00:02:26.340 --> 00:02:29.080 suddenly decided that the Espionage Act just 00:02:29.080 --> 00:02:31.699 didn't go far enough. What's fascinating here 00:02:31.699 --> 00:02:35.139 is the bizarre, highly counterintuitive logic 00:02:35.139 --> 00:02:38.159 they used to justify expanding that law. Because 00:02:38.159 --> 00:02:40.599 the country was witnessing these intense instances 00:02:40.599 --> 00:02:44.099 of public disorder. You had local groups of citizens... 00:02:44.099 --> 00:02:46.879 Like mobs, basically. Yeah. essentially vigilante 00:02:46.879 --> 00:02:49.120 mobs, taking it upon themselves to violently 00:02:49.120 --> 00:02:51.680 attack people who were expressing unpopular speech 00:02:51.680 --> 00:02:54.300 or anti -war sentiments. So people were physically 00:02:54.300 --> 00:02:56.680 assaulted in the streets simply for stating they 00:02:56.680 --> 00:02:59.139 didn't support the war effort. Yes, and the lawmakers 00:02:59.139 --> 00:03:01.479 looked at this wartime violence and their takeaway 00:03:01.479 --> 00:03:04.319 wasn't to crack down on the violent mobs. Instead, 00:03:04.479 --> 00:03:06.400 some lawmakers argued that the public was acting 00:03:06.400 --> 00:03:08.199 out because the federal government lacked the 00:03:08.199 --> 00:03:10.419 authority to punish the unpopular speech itself. 00:03:10.439 --> 00:03:13.319 Wait, what? I know. They pitched the Sedition 00:03:13.319 --> 00:03:15.789 Act as a way to enhance the government authority 00:03:15.789 --> 00:03:19.669 to punish dissenting speech, supposedly to prevent 00:03:19.669 --> 00:03:22.050 these vigilante mobs from doing what the government 00:03:22.050 --> 00:03:24.810 previously couldn't. It was framed, incredibly, 00:03:24.990 --> 00:03:27.389 as a measure to maintain public order. That is 00:03:27.389 --> 00:03:30.330 a staggering rationale. Yeah. Lock up the dissenters 00:03:30.330 --> 00:03:32.729 so the mob doesn't get to them first. It's totally 00:03:32.729 --> 00:03:35.909 backwards. But there is another layer to the 00:03:35.909 --> 00:03:37.750 politics of this that stood out to me in the 00:03:37.750 --> 00:03:41.400 source. You would assume... a law this heavy 00:03:41.400 --> 00:03:44.060 -handed was the brainchild of some authoritarian 00:03:44.060 --> 00:03:47.340 leader demanding absolute loyalty. Yet President 00:03:47.340 --> 00:03:49.520 Woodrow Wilson and his attorney general Thomas 00:03:49.520 --> 00:03:51.740 Watt Gregory, they didn't actually want this 00:03:51.740 --> 00:03:53.659 bill. They viewed it as a political compromise. 00:03:53.840 --> 00:03:56.340 Yeah, it came down to a bureaucratic turf war 00:03:56.340 --> 00:03:59.199 and just a desperate need to save face. The Justice 00:03:59.199 --> 00:04:01.639 Department was facing massive public and political 00:04:01.639 --> 00:04:03.800 pressure. Critics felt the administration was 00:04:03.800 --> 00:04:05.979 failing to prosecute offensive speech aggressively 00:04:05.979 --> 00:04:08.219 enough. And Wilson and Gregory wanted to avoid 00:04:08.219 --> 00:04:10.460 congressional hearings that would embarrass the 00:04:10.460 --> 00:04:12.379 administration over this perceived weakness. 00:04:12.819 --> 00:04:15.520 But wait, if Wilson and his attorney general 00:04:15.520 --> 00:04:18.379 fundamentally didn't want this bill and they 00:04:18.379 --> 00:04:21.240 thought it went too far, why didn't Wilson just 00:04:21.240 --> 00:04:24.120 veto it? Was he really that afraid of bad PR 00:04:24.120 --> 00:04:26.319 from a congressional hearing? It was more than 00:04:26.319 --> 00:04:29.100 just bad PR. It was an existential threat to 00:04:29.100 --> 00:04:31.100 the Justice Department's jurisdiction. There 00:04:31.100 --> 00:04:33.319 were other proposals floating around Congress 00:04:33.319 --> 00:04:35.660 that would have stripped prosecutorial authority 00:04:35.660 --> 00:04:38.180 away from the Justice Department entirely and 00:04:38.180 --> 00:04:40.160 handed it over to the War Department. Oh wow. 00:04:40.279 --> 00:04:42.779 Right. If that had happened, it would have created 00:04:42.779 --> 00:04:45.959 a system of civilian courts martial. The military 00:04:45.959 --> 00:04:48.079 would have been prosecuting everyday civilians 00:04:48.079 --> 00:04:50.899 for things they said. Wilson and Gregory found 00:04:50.899 --> 00:04:53.040 the constitutionality of military trials for 00:04:53.040 --> 00:04:56.240 civilians highly questionable. So the Sedition 00:04:56.240 --> 00:04:58.959 Act, which was managed by civilian courts, was 00:04:58.959 --> 00:05:01.180 swallowed as the lesser of two evils to keep 00:05:01.180 --> 00:05:04.100 the War Department at bay. It's amazing how massive 00:05:04.100 --> 00:05:06.899 historical shifts sometimes just come down to 00:05:06.899 --> 00:05:08.660 departmental power struggles. Just protecting 00:05:08.660 --> 00:05:11.699 their turf. Exactly. And despite that reluctance 00:05:11.699 --> 00:05:14.279 at the very top, the bill sailed through Congress 00:05:14.279 --> 00:05:17.279 with remarkable speed. In the House of Representatives, 00:05:17.459 --> 00:05:21.759 the final vote was 293 to 1. That ratio is insane. 00:05:22.199 --> 00:05:25.779 Out of nearly 300 representatives, only one single 00:05:25.779 --> 00:05:28.220 person, Socialist Representative Meyer London 00:05:28.220 --> 00:05:31.100 of New York, voted against making it illegal 00:05:31.100 --> 00:05:33.279 to criticize the government. The Senate vote 00:05:33.279 --> 00:05:37.490 was closer though. passing 48 to 26. And to maintain 00:05:37.490 --> 00:05:40.189 strict impartiality regarding the political dynamics 00:05:40.189 --> 00:05:42.670 of the time, we should really note who made up 00:05:42.670 --> 00:05:45.649 that opposition. It came almost entirely from 00:05:45.649 --> 00:05:48.300 Republicans in the Senate. Right, figures like 00:05:48.300 --> 00:05:50.680 Henry Cabot Lodge and Hiram Johnson led the push 00:05:50.680 --> 00:05:53.379 back there. Johnson specifically defended the 00:05:53.379 --> 00:05:55.060 principle of free speech during the debates, 00:05:55.540 --> 00:05:57.800 while Lodge pointed out that the administration 00:05:57.800 --> 00:06:00.199 wasn't even effectively utilizing the laws that 00:06:00.199 --> 00:06:02.379 were already on the books. Yeah. Even former 00:06:02.379 --> 00:06:04.420 President Theodore Roosevelt publicly voiced 00:06:04.420 --> 00:06:07.199 his opposition to the measure. But the momentum 00:06:07.199 --> 00:06:09.379 of wartime paranoia pushed it through anyway. 00:06:09.959 --> 00:06:11.899 Which brings us to the actual mechanics of the 00:06:11.899 --> 00:06:14.620 law. The fine print. Yeah. The Sedition Act of 00:06:14.620 --> 00:06:17.319 1918 was technically a set of amendments to the 00:06:17.319 --> 00:06:20.500 1917 Espionage Act. But when you actually read 00:06:20.500 --> 00:06:22.920 the text of the legislation, it is incredibly 00:06:22.920 --> 00:06:26.120 broad. It explicitly forbade the use of disloyal, 00:06:26.420 --> 00:06:29.019 profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about 00:06:29.019 --> 00:06:31.360 the United States government, its flag, or its 00:06:31.360 --> 00:06:34.240 armed forces. It also criminalized language that 00:06:34.240 --> 00:06:35.819 caused others to view the American government 00:06:35.819 --> 00:06:38.360 with contempt or any speech that interfered with 00:06:38.360 --> 00:06:41.180 the sale of government bonds. The inclusion of 00:06:41.180 --> 00:06:43.620 a word like scurrilous is deeply problematic 00:06:43.620 --> 00:06:46.560 from a legal standpoint. It is entirely subjective. 00:06:47.019 --> 00:06:49.939 Who defines what is scurrilous or abusive? Exactly. 00:06:50.000 --> 00:06:51.779 It could be anything. When the language of a 00:06:51.779 --> 00:06:54.240 law is that vague, it gives prosecutors immense 00:06:54.240 --> 00:06:56.860 discretionary power to target almost anyone expressing 00:06:56.860 --> 00:06:59.360 a dissenting thought. And the stakes were incredibly 00:06:59.360 --> 00:07:02.040 high. A conviction under this act generally meant 00:07:02.040 --> 00:07:04.779 a prison sentence ranging from five to 20 years. 00:07:04.959 --> 00:07:07.220 20 years for a scurrilous comment. Just let that 00:07:07.220 --> 00:07:09.560 sink in. And if we connect this to the bigger 00:07:09.560 --> 00:07:12.439 picture, there is a mechanism in this law that 00:07:12.439 --> 00:07:15.379 is often overlooked, but was devastatingly effective. 00:07:16.019 --> 00:07:18.680 The Sedition Act granted the Postmaster General 00:07:18.680 --> 00:07:21.839 the authority to refuse to deliver any mail that 00:07:21.839 --> 00:07:24.540 met these vague standards for punishable speech. 00:07:25.079 --> 00:07:27.180 So the Postmaster General essentially became 00:07:27.180 --> 00:07:30.680 the arbiter of public discourse. Precisely. Blocking 00:07:30.680 --> 00:07:34.319 mail in 1918 was akin to deplatforming someone 00:07:34.319 --> 00:07:36.680 from the modern digital infrastructure today. 00:07:37.019 --> 00:07:40.000 It completely severed their ability to organize, 00:07:40.160 --> 00:07:42.600 to distribute newspapers or to share dissenting 00:07:42.600 --> 00:07:45.540 ideas. The government had an incredibly effective 00:07:45.540 --> 00:07:48.519 quiet tool for censoring printed materials and 00:07:48.519 --> 00:07:50.699 entirely silencing activists before their words 00:07:50.699 --> 00:07:52.379 even reached an audience. You don't even need 00:07:52.379 --> 00:07:54.579 to risk a public trial at that point. Your ideas 00:07:54.579 --> 00:07:56.600 are just physically intercepted and destroyed 00:07:56.600 --> 00:07:59.319 in transit. So with this incredible broad law, 00:07:59.680 --> 00:08:02.000 and the postmaster acting as the nation's content 00:08:02.000 --> 00:08:05.379 moderator, the enforcement phase began. Now, 00:08:05.480 --> 00:08:08.680 the act passed in May of 1918, which was just 00:08:08.680 --> 00:08:11.120 a few months before Armistice Day in November, 00:08:11.720 --> 00:08:14.579 ending the hostilities of World War I. Despite 00:08:14.579 --> 00:08:17.540 that really narrow window, the enforcement was 00:08:17.540 --> 00:08:20.399 aggressive. Overall, there were about 1 ,500 00:08:20.399 --> 00:08:22.959 prosecutions carried out under the Espionage 00:08:22.959 --> 00:08:25.560 and Sedition Acts, resulting in more than 1 ,000 00:08:25.560 --> 00:08:28.180 convictions. A conviction rate of roughly two 00:08:28.180 --> 00:08:30.339 thirds is staggering, especially considering 00:08:30.339 --> 00:08:33.259 the short time frame. It highlights how aggressively 00:08:33.259 --> 00:08:35.860 federal prosecutors pursued these cases and how 00:08:35.860 --> 00:08:38.220 willing juries were to convict their fellow citizens 00:08:38.220 --> 00:08:40.620 under the banner of patriotism. Looking at the 00:08:40.620 --> 00:08:42.860 specific case studies provided really puts a 00:08:42.860 --> 00:08:44.860 human face on this whole dragnet. Let's look 00:08:44.860 --> 00:08:47.340 at William C. Edenborn. He was a naturalized 00:08:47.340 --> 00:08:49.679 citizen originally from Germany and a wealthy 00:08:49.679 --> 00:08:51.720 industrialist running a railroad business down 00:08:51.720 --> 00:08:55.259 in New Orleans, Louisiana in April of 1918. Federal 00:08:55.259 --> 00:08:57.500 authorities arrived at his business and arrested 00:08:57.500 --> 00:09:00.789 him. Now, he wasn't accused of espionage or plotting 00:09:00.789 --> 00:09:03.809 sabotage. He was accused of speaking disloyally 00:09:03.809 --> 00:09:05.809 because he allegedly belittled the threat of 00:09:05.809 --> 00:09:08.029 Germany to the security of the United States. 00:09:08.250 --> 00:09:10.269 The Edenborn case illustrates that wealth and 00:09:10.269 --> 00:09:12.690 social status didn't insulate you if your speech 00:09:12.690 --> 00:09:15.629 was deemed insufficiently patriotic. He merely 00:09:15.629 --> 00:09:18.190 expressed an opinion minimizing a foreign threat, 00:09:18.370 --> 00:09:20.750 and that was enough to trigger a federal arrest. 00:09:21.129 --> 00:09:23.730 It shows how low the bar for prosecution had 00:09:23.730 --> 00:09:26.110 actually fallen. And the government also specifically 00:09:26.110 --> 00:09:28.429 went after prominent politicians. figures to 00:09:28.429 --> 00:09:31.490 set an example. In June of 1918, they arrested 00:09:31.490 --> 00:09:35.190 Eugene V. Debs in Canton, Ohio. And Debs wasn't 00:09:35.190 --> 00:09:38.450 just a casual critic. He was a major, highly 00:09:38.450 --> 00:09:40.669 visible figure in the Socialist Party. He had 00:09:40.669 --> 00:09:43.429 run for president multiple times. Debs is a fascinating 00:09:43.429 --> 00:09:45.870 case because his arrest was directly tied to 00:09:45.870 --> 00:09:48.450 a public speech that authorities claimed undermined 00:09:48.450 --> 00:09:51.230 conscription efforts. For delivering a political 00:09:51.230 --> 00:09:53.549 speech, this major national figure was sentenced 00:09:53.549 --> 00:09:57.570 to 10 years in prison. Ten years. Yes, he actually 00:09:57.570 --> 00:10:00.230 served his sentence in the Atlanta federal penitentiary 00:10:00.230 --> 00:10:03.789 starting in April 1919. What's remarkable is 00:10:03.789 --> 00:10:05.669 that he ran for president of the United States 00:10:05.669 --> 00:10:08.789 in the 1920 election from inside his prison cell, 00:10:09.070 --> 00:10:11.230 eventually receiving nearly a million votes. 00:10:11.289 --> 00:10:14.509 That is wild. He remained in prison until December 00:10:14.509 --> 00:10:17.590 1921 when President Warren G. Harding finally 00:10:17.590 --> 00:10:20.289 commuted his sentence. The idea of a prominent 00:10:20.289 --> 00:10:22.350 political leader today being locked in a federal 00:10:22.350 --> 00:10:25.529 penitentiary for 10 years because they criticize 00:10:25.529 --> 00:10:28.330 military policy is just difficult to process. 00:10:28.809 --> 00:10:31.090 And the enforcement varied greatly depending 00:10:31.090 --> 00:10:33.250 on where you were in the country. The history 00:10:33.250 --> 00:10:35.750 notes that prosecutions were particularly intense 00:10:35.750 --> 00:10:37.970 in the western states where the industrial workers 00:10:37.970 --> 00:10:40.590 of the world, the IWW labor union, was highly 00:10:40.590 --> 00:10:43.690 active. Right, the Wobblies. Exactly. Which brings 00:10:43.690 --> 00:10:46.049 us to Molly Steimer, another notable activist 00:10:46.049 --> 00:10:48.590 convicted under the amended act, and Marie Equi. 00:10:49.049 --> 00:10:50.909 The Marie Equi case is where the government's 00:10:50.909 --> 00:10:52.690 timeline completely falls apart for me, so she 00:10:52.690 --> 00:10:55.169 was arrested for giving a speech at the IWW Hall 00:10:55.169 --> 00:10:58.309 in Portland, Oregon. But the timing of her conviction 00:10:58.309 --> 00:11:01.500 is the real story here. Ah, yes. The timeline 00:11:01.500 --> 00:11:04.220 of the Acre case really highlights the sheer 00:11:04.220 --> 00:11:06.440 bureaucratic momentum of these prosecutions. 00:11:06.620 --> 00:11:09.100 Here's where it gets really interesting. Marie 00:11:09.100 --> 00:11:11.820 Equi was convicted for her speech after the war 00:11:11.820 --> 00:11:14.980 was already over. The hostilities had ended, 00:11:15.399 --> 00:11:17.539 the supposed emergency that justified the law 00:11:17.539 --> 00:11:20.519 had passed, and yet she was still prosecuted 00:11:20.519 --> 00:11:24.019 and convicted. How is that even legally justifiable 00:11:24.019 --> 00:11:26.200 when the law itself was intrinsically tied to 00:11:26.200 --> 00:11:28.980 wartime? It perfectly illustrates how once a 00:11:28.980 --> 00:11:31.120 mechanism of suppression is activated, it doesn't 00:11:31.120 --> 00:11:33.299 just immediately switch off because the original 00:11:33.299 --> 00:11:35.940 threat is gone. The machinery of prosecution 00:11:35.940 --> 00:11:38.840 was already in motion. The Sedition Act explicitly 00:11:38.840 --> 00:11:41.220 stated it only applied to times when the United 00:11:41.220 --> 00:11:43.820 States is in war. But the formal peace treaties 00:11:43.820 --> 00:11:46.080 hadn't been signed. And honestly, some powerful 00:11:46.080 --> 00:11:48.279 officials in the Justice Department wanted to 00:11:48.279 --> 00:11:50.480 keep that machinery running for domestic purposes. 00:11:51.049 --> 00:11:53.190 Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer was one of 00:11:53.190 --> 00:11:55.970 those officials, right? The war ends, but the 00:11:55.970 --> 00:11:58.870 paranoia doesn't. Exactly. The environment in 00:11:58.870 --> 00:12:01.509 1919 was incredibly volatile. You had the aftermath 00:12:01.509 --> 00:12:04.129 of the Russian Revolution, massive domestic labor 00:12:04.129 --> 00:12:06.429 strikes, and a series of anarchist bombings in 00:12:06.429 --> 00:12:08.570 the United States. This was the birth of the 00:12:08.570 --> 00:12:11.629 first Red Scare. And A. Mitchell Palmer capitalized 00:12:11.629 --> 00:12:14.990 on this national anxiety. He waged a highly public 00:12:14.990 --> 00:12:17.690 campaign to create a permanent peacetime version 00:12:17.690 --> 00:12:20.549 of the Sedition Act. Peacetime. Right. And his 00:12:20.549 --> 00:12:23.029 push for this legislation was not unrelated to 00:12:23.029 --> 00:12:25.809 his own political ambitions. He was actively 00:12:25.809 --> 00:12:27.750 campaigning for the Democratic nomination for 00:12:27.750 --> 00:12:29.909 president, and he wanted to brand himself as 00:12:29.909 --> 00:12:32.490 the ultimate law and order candidate tough on 00:12:32.490 --> 00:12:36.090 radicalism. In January of 1919, Palmer sent a 00:12:36.090 --> 00:12:38.929 circular out to newspaper editors outlining his 00:12:38.929 --> 00:12:41.580 rationale for peacetime censorship. He cited 00:12:41.580 --> 00:12:43.820 what he viewed as the dangerous foreign language 00:12:43.820 --> 00:12:46.679 press in America. He also pointed to radical 00:12:46.679 --> 00:12:48.980 attempts to create unrest within African -American 00:12:48.980 --> 00:12:51.500 communities. He was clearly using the fear of 00:12:51.500 --> 00:12:53.600 domestic radicalism and racial unrest as the 00:12:53.600 --> 00:12:56.480 bogeyman to justify extending wartime suppression 00:12:56.480 --> 00:12:59.320 into everyday peacetime American life. He even 00:12:59.320 --> 00:13:02.960 went to Congress in June 1920 to testify in favor 00:13:02.960 --> 00:13:05.840 of this peacetime law. And Congress was certainly 00:13:05.840 --> 00:13:08.299 listening at first. At one point, there were 00:13:08.299 --> 00:13:10.639 more than 70 different versions of proposed language 00:13:10.639 --> 00:13:13.559 and amendments for a peacetime sedition act floating 00:13:13.559 --> 00:13:15.740 around the legislature. Seventy different versions. 00:13:16.840 --> 00:13:19.059 But Palmer eventually overplayed his hand, didn't 00:13:19.059 --> 00:13:21.600 he? He pushed far too hard, and the backlash 00:13:21.600 --> 00:13:25.620 was severe. Despite those 70 proposed versions, 00:13:26.139 --> 00:13:28.700 Congress ultimately took no action on the controversial 00:13:28.700 --> 00:13:31.820 proposal during that 1920 campaign year. The 00:13:31.820 --> 00:13:34.700 political tides had turned. Later in June, a 00:13:34.700 --> 00:13:37.220 court decision explicitly cited Palmer's anti 00:13:37.220 --> 00:13:39.860 -radical campaign for its blatant abuse of power. 00:13:39.899 --> 00:13:42.360 Wow. Even the conservative press turned on him. 00:13:43.019 --> 00:13:45.279 The Christian Science Monitor wrote a scathing 00:13:45.279 --> 00:13:47.279 rebuke, essentially stating they could no longer 00:13:47.279 --> 00:13:49.700 support him. They wrote that his actions, quote, 00:13:49.840 --> 00:13:52.159 appeared to be an excess of radicalism and was 00:13:52.159 --> 00:13:54.000 certainly met with an excess of suppression. 00:13:54.539 --> 00:13:57.559 An excess of suppression. That's a powerful phrase. 00:13:58.340 --> 00:14:00.519 But while Congress was backing away from a peacetime 00:14:00.519 --> 00:14:03.320 act, what was the Supreme Court doing about the 00:14:03.320 --> 00:14:04.840 convictions that had already happened during 00:14:04.840 --> 00:14:07.779 the war? Did they step in and strike down the 00:14:07.779 --> 00:14:10.080 1918 Sedition Act to protect the First Amendment? 00:14:10.220 --> 00:14:12.460 Surprisingly, they didn't. In fact, the Supreme 00:14:12.460 --> 00:14:15.080 Court actually upheld the constitutionality of 00:14:15.080 --> 00:14:17.820 the Sedition Act. The landmark case was Abrams 00:14:17.820 --> 00:14:21.620 v. United States in 1919. The court upheld the 00:14:21.620 --> 00:14:23.480 convictions of individuals who were distributing 00:14:23.480 --> 00:14:25.799 leaflets urging the curtailment of production 00:14:25.799 --> 00:14:28.860 of essential war materials. OK, so they let it 00:14:28.860 --> 00:14:31.799 stand. Yes. The majority of the court relied 00:14:31.799 --> 00:14:34.279 on the legal standard of the time, the clear 00:14:34.279 --> 00:14:36.919 and present danger test, arguing that during 00:14:36.919 --> 00:14:39.840 wartime, dissenting speech intrinsically damages 00:14:39.840 --> 00:14:41.919 the war effort and therefore can be punished. 00:14:42.460 --> 00:14:44.679 They reinforce the government's power to suppress 00:14:44.679 --> 00:14:47.080 speech when the nation's security is perceived 00:14:47.080 --> 00:14:49.700 to be at risk. But there's a vital piece of legal 00:14:49.700 --> 00:14:51.519 philosophy that came out of that Supreme Court 00:14:51.519 --> 00:14:54.740 case, a famous dissenting opinion that changed 00:14:54.740 --> 00:14:57.700 how we view free speech today. Yes, absolutely. 00:14:58.519 --> 00:15:01.100 While the majority upheld the act, Justice Oliver 00:15:01.100 --> 00:15:03.460 Wendell Holmes wrote a brilliant dissenting opinion. 00:15:03.659 --> 00:15:06.840 He argued that unless speech poses an immediate, 00:15:07.179 --> 00:15:09.919 tangible danger, the government has no business 00:15:09.919 --> 00:15:12.590 regulating it. It was in this descent that he 00:15:12.590 --> 00:15:15.149 birthed the concept we now call the marketplace 00:15:15.149 --> 00:15:18.370 of ideas. The marketplace of ideas. Right. Holmes 00:15:18.370 --> 00:15:20.629 argued that the best test of truth is the power 00:15:20.629 --> 00:15:23.330 of a thought to get itself accepted in the competition 00:15:23.330 --> 00:15:26.330 of the market. You don't suppress bad ideas with 00:15:26.330 --> 00:15:28.909 20 -year prison sentences. You defeat them with 00:15:28.909 --> 00:15:31.509 better ideas. And it is important to note, for 00:15:31.509 --> 00:15:33.789 modern context, that subsequent Supreme Court 00:15:33.789 --> 00:15:36.149 decisions over the decades, specifically rulings 00:15:36.149 --> 00:15:39.629 like Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, have dramatically 00:15:39.629 --> 00:15:41.889 shifted the legal landscape toward Holmes' view. 00:15:42.429 --> 00:15:44.789 Under modern rulings, the Sedition Act of 1918 00:15:44.789 --> 00:15:47.149 would almost certainly be considered unconstitutional 00:15:47.149 --> 00:15:49.690 today. Yeah, thankfully. And Congress eventually 00:15:49.690 --> 00:15:51.950 officially repealed the Sedition Act on December 00:15:51.950 --> 00:15:55.269 13, 1920, as part of a sweeping repeal of wartime 00:15:55.269 --> 00:15:58.450 laws. And in 1921, the new president, Woodrow 00:15:58.450 --> 00:16:01.149 Wilson, offered clemency to most of the individuals 00:16:01.149 --> 00:16:02.909 who are still sitting in prison under the act. 00:16:03.070 --> 00:16:06.009 A quiet end to a very loud piece of history. 00:16:06.429 --> 00:16:09.289 Exactly. So what does this all mean? We started 00:16:09.289 --> 00:16:11.629 by talking about the hypothetical horror of facing 00:16:11.629 --> 00:16:14.269 20 years in prison for a critical social media 00:16:14.269 --> 00:16:18.190 post. We've traced the panic of 1918, the vigilante 00:16:18.190 --> 00:16:21.190 logic, the thousands of rapid convictions, the 00:16:21.190 --> 00:16:23.470 targeting of political opponents, and the eventual 00:16:23.470 --> 00:16:26.450 repeal. When we look at all these facts, what 00:16:26.450 --> 00:16:29.299 is the core takeaway for the listener? The Sedition 00:16:29.299 --> 00:16:32.200 Act of 1918 proves, with historical certainty, 00:16:32.639 --> 00:16:35.039 that during times of immense national fear or 00:16:35.039 --> 00:16:37.460 conflict, a government's instinct to control 00:16:37.460 --> 00:16:39.840 the narrative can easily override constitutional 00:16:39.840 --> 00:16:42.659 rights. It shows us that the noble desire to 00:16:42.659 --> 00:16:44.679 protect the public from a perceived threat can 00:16:44.679 --> 00:16:47.080 morph incredibly quickly into a mechanism for 00:16:47.080 --> 00:16:49.659 punishing unpopular opinions. Civil liberties 00:16:49.659 --> 00:16:52.240 aren't self -executing. They are fragile, and 00:16:52.240 --> 00:16:54.879 they require constant vigilance, especially when 00:16:54.879 --> 00:16:57.259 society feels the most vulnerable to external 00:16:57.259 --> 00:16:59.860 or internal. threats. It's a stark reminder of 00:16:59.860 --> 00:17:02.179 how thin the line between national security and 00:17:02.179 --> 00:17:04.900 authoritarian suppression really is. This raises 00:17:04.900 --> 00:17:06.720 an important question though for everyone listening. 00:17:07.079 --> 00:17:09.279 What stands out to you the most about this history? 00:17:09.630 --> 00:17:12.329 Is it the sheer volume of convictions in such 00:17:12.329 --> 00:17:15.230 a short window of time? Is it the fact that almost 00:17:15.230 --> 00:17:17.630 the entire House of Representatives voted to 00:17:17.630 --> 00:17:21.009 criminalize dissenting speech? Or is it how easily 00:17:21.009 --> 00:17:22.849 the fundamental right to free expression was 00:17:22.849 --> 00:17:25.190 discarded the moment it became inconvenient for 00:17:25.190 --> 00:17:27.690 the government's wartime narrative? That is exactly 00:17:27.690 --> 00:17:29.829 what we want you to be thinking about. And as 00:17:29.829 --> 00:17:31.670 we wrap up this deep dive, I want to leave you 00:17:31.670 --> 00:17:34.109 with one final lingering thought to mull over. 00:17:34.329 --> 00:17:38.210 We discussed how, in 1918, the government utilized 00:17:38.210 --> 00:17:41.309 the Postmaster General to physically stop the 00:17:41.309 --> 00:17:44.829 delivery of dissenting ideas. It was an incredibly 00:17:44.829 --> 00:17:47.309 effective way to silence opposition by cutting 00:17:47.309 --> 00:17:50.329 off their distribution network. Well, if a major 00:17:50.329 --> 00:17:52.670 global conflict broke out tomorrow and national 00:17:52.670 --> 00:17:55.309 panic set in again, you obviously wouldn't be 00:17:55.309 --> 00:17:57.269 relying on the Postmaster General for your news. 00:17:57.589 --> 00:17:59.650 But who controls the flow of your information 00:17:59.650 --> 00:18:02.819 today? And if a modern sweeping emergency measure 00:18:02.819 --> 00:18:05.640 were passed, how easily could a digital switch 00:18:05.640 --> 00:18:08.099 be flipped by an internet service provider or 00:18:08.099 --> 00:18:10.319 a major tech platform to block what you were 00:18:10.319 --> 00:18:13.240 allowed to read, share, or say online long before 00:18:13.240 --> 00:18:15.019 the courts ever get a chance to intervene? That 00:18:15.019 --> 00:18:17.240 is a heavy thought, but an absolutely necessary 00:18:17.240 --> 00:18:19.380 one to consider. It is. Thank you for joining 00:18:19.380 --> 00:18:21.400 us on this deep dive into the Sedition Act of 00:18:21.400 --> 00:18:24.279 1918. We hope you walk away with a richer understanding 00:18:24.279 --> 00:18:26.650 of this turbulent chapter in history. Keep asking 00:18:26.650 --> 00:18:29.009 questions, keep exploring the past, and we will 00:18:29.009 --> 00:18:30.390 catch you on the next deep dive.