SECT. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered, or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either House of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either House of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States...then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.
Those seeking to outlaw over-heated debate would do well to look deep into our history (or only as far back as the 1960s – or the recent Bush Administration). They would find that hot, highly uncivil rhetoric accompanies our democracy at every turn. They might pause before trying to tame angry expressions by legal means lest they find themselves regarded with the same disfavor as the party of John Adams – which, a few years after passing the Sedition Act, became extinct.
brandsinger

2 comments:
Having a deep knowledge of this particular historical period (I watched the entire John Adams mini-series on PBS), I concur that these short-sighted, reactionary steps always look ridiculous in retrospect. Regardless of what is said in the public discourse, some individuals will stitch together a rationale for violence.
...yes, and some will always be ready to stitch together a rationale for controlling political debate... so that their own position are defended from attack.
brandsinger
Post a Comment