Silencing Anti-War Voices

 

The United States government has a long history of silencing anti-war voices when these ideas do not coincide with their interests.  In 1918, the government passed the sedition act which was a way to punish anti-war protestors.  This act made it illegal to criticize the government.  They created the term incitement to attempt to justify their attack on free speech.  Incitement was described as speech which causes violence or lawless action.  They argued that this type of speech was not protected by the first amendment.  The government did not want to hear anti-war people's opinions, especially in the midst of World War I.  This is why they used the sedition act to pin citizens against each other and make sure that only one type of opinion was heard.  Some people were for the war as it showed America as a great military power, but by silencing the anti-war voices it made the US seem like they were all on the same page.  "Although many Americans were swept up in a patriotic call to arms, a small but vocal minority of socialist, anarchist, pacifists, and civil libertarians opposed American militarism."  These were the people who the government meant to silence.  Their own neighbors could turn them in just for speaking their minds.  This time period showed how the government could manipulate the people's civil liberties.  "The men and women who spoke out against the war faced some of the greatest state repression in the history of the United States."  I think it is very important that we remember and are educated on this topic.  This is an expanse of the government taking our rights.  This is still happening today in a less severe way.  We are constantly being monitored and the mainstream media that we consume is often filtered by the government.  

There are some news outlets like Antiwar.com and The American Conservative that are not as filtered by the government and share their anti-war opinions.  This is valuable because we need to have all opinions heard to have a real, honest conversation.  The Marketplace of Ideas is the "belief that the test of truth or acceptance of ideas depends on their competition with one another and not on the opinion of a censor, whether one provided by the government or by some other authority."  This idea by John Stuart Mill basically says that the ability to share our opinions with each other without the interference of a censor or government is how we have full range of ideas and freedom.  Without this marketplace of ideas, we are bound to be limited to the information that we are being fed.  That is not freedom.  I find it very strange that I barely hear the opposing view that these websites represent.  They do not seem to break through the rest of the loud mainstream sources. 

Whether or not the majority agrees with anti-war voices, all voices should be able to be heard.  This is how we have conversations and are able to form our own opinions instead of just thinking what we are told to think.  In conclusion, all opinions should be heard and evaluated even when they oppose our views.  It is important to continue to educate ourselves.  Without these opposing voices, we would never be challenged and just do what we are told by others and our government.