Free speech in wartime review

Stone, Geoffrey R. Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime. From The Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 2004


Geoffrey Stone’s book regarding free speech in times of war seeks to examine not only an interpretation of the First Amendment, but the implications of the interpretation of said Amendment and it’s subsequent repression during wartime. According to Stone, the next generation who is currently weathering “the eye of the storm”, is going to be responsible for upholding and interpreting American Civil Liberties. But, he insists that in order to have a society that is consistent with the First Amendment, the nation needs just politicians, Judges who utilize discretion and an American people who not only value their own liberty but the liberties of their fellow Americans as well.
Stone’s book allows the reader to find a common thread that runs throughout the work., Namely, dissent in wartime, and the fears that overcame the American people during turbulent times. The Sedition Act of 1798 was not able to cure the American Republic of dissenters, or rather those who opinions differed from the policies of the government at the time. Stone, reasserts throughout his work that the rest of history attempted to free themselves of the crushing blow that the Sedition Act had on American liberties. According o Stone The Sedition Act of 1798, World War I ,and the fervor of McCarthism during the Cold War were the most critical times in our nation. It was these times when the deliberate suspension of Civil liberties were entrenched, it was these times when neighbor turned against neighbor. Also, it was during these times when the United States resembled a dictatorship rather than a democracy.

It is interesting to note the manipulation that the Wilson Administration utilized in order to focus American nationalism on the war in Europe. German-Americans were crucified, living in a state of fear and it was all substantiated by the government and the American people.. The current war in Iraq , is built around the same policy, manipulate the public in order to validate our efforts. True, the Bush administration, according to Stone, didn’t orchestrate internment camps for all American citizens of Muslim affiliation or Middle Eastern persuasion as the Rosevelt Adminsitration did during World War II. . But, the American people did so, without having been asked. Perhaps, the Administration did advocate this racism. Or maybe, the American public is simply programed in wartime to scapegoat a nationality.

Stones work is a groundbreaking piece, the chapters are well written and not just for academia. However, the book could never be utilized in an undergraduate course because it is just too much work to cover in one semester. Unless, of course the book was a semester long class. Also, Stone could have focused his work a little more on the people who were caught up in the midst of the controversy. The individual in wartime, and the emotions that they themselves deal with in order to survive. German Americans in World War I or just the average person and their ideas on the policies that were being enacted in the time. What were their thoughts? Was the entire American people so fervently blinded? It would have better for Stone to focus more on the community and individual sphere of societies influences on free speech. But instead he focuses on the government and states oppression of free speech. Also, Stone spent the least amount of time on the War on Terror, it was basically a point he settled on to briefly compare the mistakes of the former wars, and the fall backs of the current administration.

Free speech and the interpretation of the First Amendment, have been a point of debate since they were acquired or written into the American ideology. The masterminds who have been throughout the ages able to manipulate the wording to suppress civil liberties are some of the few that, according to Stone, should not be allowed in government. His work is thoroughly investigated and references. It is easily accessible and very interesting to read. Perhaps, in this time the lessons of the past will be looked upon , instead of the “two steps back and one step forward” logic that Stone asserts has been the current interpretation of American policies.