Censorship through the Centuries: Free Speech Suppression by the Government and the Mainstream Media

The United States government, which prides itself in being the leading force in safeguarding flexibility throughout the world, has a history of putting a muzzle on wire service and people throughout its history. From the early colonial period to the beginnings of the web, the state has actually consistently silenced its critics, which seems to be its true nature.

The Sedition Act of 1798

Signed into law by the Federalist Celebration president John Adams on July 14, 1798, the Sedition Act made it unlawful to print, utter, or publish any incorrect, outrageous, and destructive writing about the federal government. Section 2 of the Sedition Act details the punishment for violating this brand-new law: “Such person, being thereof convicted prior to any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, will be penalized by a fine not surpassing two thousand dollars, and by jail time not going beyond two years.”

This law was an outright violation of the First Change in the Constitution, which was ratified only 9 years in the past. The act finally ended after Thomas Jefferson was elected in 1800, and all those founded guilty under the act were pardoned. Nevertheless, this would not be the last time the US government tried to use what Jefferson said was a “rod of iron” to silence others.

Censorship in the Civil War

During times of peace, people might not be as willing to quit their or other individuals’s liberty. During times of war, however, the propaganda produced by the state will persuade individuals that specific rights should be suppressed in the name of security and triumph and to object this would be unpatriotic. The First Amendment Encyclopedia examines the actions of censorship taken by the Union during the Civil War and their validation for such actions. The article states: “Throughout the war, paper reporters and editors were apprehended without due procedure for opposing the draft, dissuading enlistments in the Union army, and even slamming the earnings tax.”

To the Union military and federal government, this censorship was essential to make sure triumph against the rebels, even if the First Change had been violated. President Abraham Lincoln, in The Truth from a Sincere Man, furthered this reason by proposing the concern of whether he should “shoot a simple-minded soldier-boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a cunning agitator who causes him to desert?”

Some Northerners purchased into this and started riots that targeted newspapers such as the Stark County Democrat in Canton, Ohio. The editor for this newspaper, Archibald McGregor, would later be apprehended on unspecified charges. The town’s Republican postmaster accompanied the soldiers making the arrest, providing reliability that the charges had actually been politically motivated.

World War I and the Espionage Act

A typical style amongst the Union leadership’s reason for censorship was nationwide security, that all opposition to the war would sow discontent amongst the troops and trigger desertion and ultimately defeat. In April 1917, when the United States went into the Great War against the Central powers, President Woodrow Wilson declared that Germany had actually “filled our unwary communities and even our workplaces of federal government with spies and set criminal intrigues all over afoot against our nationwide unity.”

With this, President Wilson passed the Espionage Act in 1917. This law offered the Department of Justice the power to charge individuals for disloyalty and offered the postmaster basic the power to limit mail. The Supreme Court, an organization supposedly developed to analyze the Constitution, not just stopped working to secure free speech but furthered its determent. In the 1919 case Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that Schenck posed a “clear and present risk” after distributing brochures suggesting that the military draft was a form of uncontrolled thrall and for that reason an infraction of the Thirteenth Amendment. The Schenck case motivated Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s infamous “shouting fire in a theater” declaration to validate reducing totally free speech.

Eventually, the Espionage Act saw 2,168 individuals prosecuted by the end of the war, and according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, 1,055 of these people would be founded guilty and punished with fines approximately $10,000 and as much as twenty years jail time.

The Second World War and Vietnam

After the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor and went into The second world war, President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8985, which established the Workplace of Censorship, without approval from Congress. President Roosevelt gave the director of the Office of Censorship the power to censor global communications at his outright discretion. The National Archives supplies us with actions of censorship taken by high-ranking government authorities such as the war secretary and Federal Bureau of Investigation director J. Edgar Hoover:

On December 8, 1941, the secretary of war ordered corps location leaders to inaugurate censorship of telephone and telegraph wires crossing international borders. 3 days later on, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, on governmental authority, assisted establish a postal censorship program to be carried out by the War Department. He was purchased to hold this short-term position until his civilian replacement could be chosen.

The Office of Censorship was abolished under Executive Order 9631 in 1945, but the tone toward totally free press and government would enter a new age. With the intro of televised news into American families, any occasion such as wars might now be tape-recorded and presented to countless people. So, when the Vietnam War started, people thought they might see firsthand what it resembled on the ground. Nevertheless, as the Harvard Crimson writes:

Only about 22 percent of all tv reports from Vietnam prior to 1968 showed “actual fight, and typically this was very little– a few incoming mortar rounds or a crackle of sniper fire.” In addition, of 167 film reports he examined, “only 16 had more than one video shot of the dead or wounded.” The American people simply did not see gore night after night.

Vietnam offered a new type of censorship that is still widespread today: noncritical reporting in the location of straight-out censorship. During the Gulf War and the war on fear, the media would represent these wars as crusades for democracy and utilize “specialists” to validate them.

The War on Fear and Beyond

The very first Gulf War ended after just forty-three days of combat, a quick American success that was painted as a treatment for the defeat in Vietnam. However, when independent reporter Jon Alpert, a long time factor to NBC News, checked out Iraq and filmed hours of uncensored video footage of the collateral damage, his relationship with the news network was terminated. As Range states:

After seeing Alpert’s video footage, “NBC Nightly News” topper Steve Friedman and anchorman Tom Brokaw understood they had a scoop and were eager to put the things on the air. But NBC News supremo Michael Gartner, who never ever saw the video, put the kibosh on the deal. And he put an end to Alpert’s 12-year relationship with the Peacock net’s news department.

Jon Alpert would take his video to CBS, where executive producer Tom Bettag tentatively authorized it, but the content never aired: “While Alpert was cutting the piece, he got a call from CBS informing him that Bettag had actually been fired which his piece was eliminated. By the time he went to ABC, the news department had a man in Baghdad.”

Throughout the Iraq War in 2003, the major media outlets continued the trend of both noncritical news reporting and finding justification for this new war. So-called professionals like John Bolton and others who were usually prowar stood unchallenged by varying concepts. In an excerpt from the book When the Press Fails, a New York Times post mentioned:

We have discovered a number of circumstances of protection that was not as extensive as it should have been. In some cases, info that was questionable then, and appears doubtful now, was insufficiently certified or permitted to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as brand-new proof emerged– or stopped working to emerge.

It’s simple twenty years later on to analyze the failures of both the government and media; even many media outlets such as CNN would release pieces of how they are sorry for pressing the war in Iraq. Nevertheless, as the years because have revealed, these wire service have actually continued to justify their actions and primarily disregard wars in Libya, Syria, Yemen, and most recently Ukraine that have American diplomacy fingerprints all over them.

About the author

Click here to add a comment

Leave a comment: