I was pondering a bill that would have the theoretical effect of muzzling destructive anti-war opinions during a period of war. Now there would have to be limits about exactly what kind of speach would be considered anti-war effort as oposed to just factual discussion about whether the war is going well or ill or provisions that would let people speak freely after the war had gone on for a long period of time like 2 years or something.

The spirit of this theoretical bill would be to combat the strategies that have worked so well against America from Vietnam to Somolia to modern day terrorism whereby the enemy only needs to not die on the field of battle long enough to frighten/coerce the American populace to stop fighting.

Now let's open it up for discussion from you.

Actually, it's already been done in the past and without the need for a bill. Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR all did it using the powers of the Presidency alone.

So to defend freedom better you want to limit freedom of speechand expression?


You don't see an inherent problem with that?

NO problem.

It worked before in the past, and it will work again in the future. We still have our democracy don't we.

Not only that it takes account a realistic view of the world.

Even the founding fathers of America knew the dangers of a runaway democracy and sought to avoid it at all cost. A runaway democracy, is as much a danger to preserving democracy as a totalitarian enemy.

Speaking for myself, I would prefer that we don't do this via presidential directive or by law as it is not a good thing. Sedition is already a crime and the pressures of the open media marketplace and civil society should take care of the rest (I piously hope anyway).

This is not something we want the government to do for us - censorship is an ugly thing. Once it starts, it might never stop and who decides what speech is permitted?

I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and that means the Whole Darn Thing, especially the First and Second Amendments.

Well said, Gunner13.

I pointed out the Presidents that had done this only to make the inference of their times (Civil War, WWI, and WWII). As we are not in such straits as those times there isn't even a mandate for such actions let alone anything else.

I agree here.

We don't need it right now, but in a case like a world war were the country's survival hangs on the balance, if the press doesn't censore itself then the government will probably step in.

If you start censoring things, how will the people know your telling the truth. The Lesser of two evils here, a government that gose into a war, for what ever reason and arouses public outcry, or government that censors opposition to its current policies.

I get annoyed when I here people who know all, about tactics, saying how they could plan the war better, or why we shouldn't have gone to Iraq and so on. But little do they realise the people they are bagging are letting them say what they want.

I just let them go on. It's not my place to tell them what they can or cannot say, because it is nobodys place. That's what both my grandfathers and three great uncles suffered for in WWII, and thats the way it should be.

Well I am sensitive to the restriction of civil liberties and that is why I think a maximum time period is essential, such as it has to expire when the war ends or a maximum of 2 years into a war. Also, the law would have to be specific about what constitutes legitimate discussion i.e. "I think the war is going badly" and damaging discussion i.e. "we shouldn't be in this war this is imperialist American corporate hegemony over country X!"

But when talking about freedoms here let's keep things in perspective. The state has the authority to pluck you out of your home and stick you onto the front lines via a draft at any time. So if a gov't can send you to your death in time of war it's hardly a travesty to restrain your freedom of speach for a LIMMITED amount of time and for a VERY SPECIFIC and enumerated type of speach.

If this was adopted, it would fan the flames of the opposition even more. They would come out to demonstrate anyways, in hopes they will be arrested and therefore become "heroes" in the cause.
This isn't a good idea. Not in this day and age.