We had better pass legislation that will operate like the gas masks in Europe to protect our soldiers and sailors against the insidious attacks of these men.” “I think we owe it as a duty to protect our own men, our soldiers and sailors, in like manner against the gases of these newsmongers, these publishers here. “ has compelled the soldiers of the allies to protect themselves with masks against poisonous gases,” he said. He also compared journalists to mustard gas. “They had reporters from most of the leading papers of the country with every army in the field and they would report every movement.” “I remember well how the movements of our Army were constantly hampered because of the daily publicity that was given to all our movements and all our preparations by the press of the country,” he said. Senator Knute Nelson of Minnesota, a Civil War veteran, took a different view of the press, recalling how newspapers had published daily troop movements during the Civil War. It must be abused in countries like this.” “I am a thorough believer in the freedom of the press,” he said later during the debate. Better to lose a battle than to lose the vast advantage of a free press.” “That of all occasions in human affairs calls for a press vigilant and bold, independent and uncensored. “Of all times in time of war the press should be free,” he said. Senator Thomas of Colorado offered a strong defense of press freedom. That provision aroused great debate in the Senate. Members of Congress, even in 1917, knew such a law could have serious implications for the freedom of the press, and many were divided on whether the government had the authority to restrict the press from publishing certain information-even during wartime.Īn early draft of the Espionage Act included a section, at President Wilson’s behest, that would have given the president the power to issue regulations about what the press was and was not allowed to report. How did the Espionage Act, originally intended to prevent German espionage during WWI, grow into a broad anti-disclosure law? It’s mostly thanks to a few amendments and a lot of creative re-interpretation by federal prosecutors and judges.įrom the very start, the Espionage Act had a First Amendment problem. Code - has grown into an American version of the U.K.’s “Official Secrets Act,” which outlaws the disclosure of any “information, documents or other articles relating to security or intelligence.” The law - which remains on the books to this day, as Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 37 of the U.S. Socialists, anti-war activists, whistleblowers and journalists have all found themselves targets of the Espionage Act. In the century since the act went into effect, it’s been used against much more than just foreign spies. The law was ostensibly an attempt to stiffen penalties against espionage activities, including the collection and communication of sensitive national security information, that would benefit Germany and other nations waging war against the U.S. The Espionage Act was originally one of a series of bills that Congress passed in 1917 as the nation prepared to enter World War I, including bills establishing a draft and regulating the domestic economy. Senator Thomas’ warning about the Espionage Act would prove prescient in the century after it became law, as its vague language about foreign espionage was re-interpreted as a broad prohibition against the activities of anti-war activists, whistleblowers and journalists. Officially titled "An act to punish acts of interference with the foreign relations, the neutrality and the foreign commerce of the United States, to punish espionage, and better to enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and for other purposes," the law is more commonly known as the Espionage Act of 1917. One hundred years ago today, on June 15, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson signed the bill into law. Following extensive debate and a few modifications, though, the bill passed both the Senate and the House of Representatives. It was April 1917, and Senator Charles Thomas of Colorado had serious concerns about the bill before the U.S. “I very much fear that with the best of intention we may place upon the statute books something that will rise to plague us in the immediate future,” the senator warned.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |