[HN Gopher] Anti-War Speech Sent Eugene V. Debs to Prison, 1918 ___________________________________________________________________ Anti-War Speech Sent Eugene V. Debs to Prison, 1918 Author : oriettaxx Score : 164 points Date : 2022-11-26 17:57 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.fifthestate.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.fifthestate.org) | backworsestasi wrote: | Back then they had state level and federal level defense | councils. People would get reported to the authorities for all | sorts of things. If you didn't donate to the red cross you would | get on the list. | | They also would instruct the pastors of churches to disseminate | messages and those that didn't were on the list as well. This is | before mass communications took hold. Most folks got their news | through word of mouth or gatherings. | humanrebar wrote: | What about newspapers? They weren't invented in the 1930s. | | Revolutionary War propaganda famously included various | pamphlets, editorials, and self-published periodicals (Thomas | Paine, The Federalist Papers, etc.). | itdependson99th wrote: | beebmam wrote: | He also ran for president from prison (and lost). Might be | relevant in the next few years. | perihelions wrote: | Democracy overrules the status quo of criminal law. That's a | deeply admirable principle, and principled people shouldn't | abandon that principle -- the supremacy of democracy -- on mere | expedience. Democracy _decides_ what is a crime and what is | not, and can boldly overrule the law with a mere vote. | | Incidentally, the incoming president of Brazil is also an ex- | con. | Spooky23 wrote: | I'm sure many Americans will soon become ardent supporters or | opposers of this position. | yucky wrote: | Democracy is mob rule. When one says that democracy decides | what is a crime and what is not, one is then defending a long | history of lynchings, miscegenation, slavery, forced medical | procedures, Jim Crow laws and much much more. | tshaddox wrote: | What about other requirements for office and limitations, | like the age and citizenship requirement and term limits for | President of the United States? Should "democracy overrule" | those too? | Synaesthesia wrote: | IMO they should, there's no need for these laws to be cast | in stone and never change. | ahtihn wrote: | Democracy can overrule those, there's a defined process for | it. | perihelions wrote: | You got me there. The questionable aspects of 18th-century | political sociology fundamentally *refute* the moral | arguments in favor of democracy, in the same way | diagonalization arguments refute theorems in computability | theory. It's ironclad math. | retrac wrote: | it's possible for a candidate to run from prison in | Westminster-style parliamentary systems. The fact that a | candidate is imprisoned should not inhibit the electors from | expressing their choice. Though once elected, they face | certain practical barriers to assuming office. | perihelions wrote: | - _" Though once elected, they face certain practical | barriers to assuming office"_ | | Then they're democratic in name only. If the previous | leader has the effective, practical ability to fuck with | the transfer of power, it ain't democracy. | whateveracct wrote: | I think the barrier is the fact that the new elected | official would still have prison time left to serve. | | Nothing about that should stop them from running and | winning. But running and/or winning shouldn't get them | out either. | perihelions wrote: | - _" But running and/or winning shouldn't get them out | either. "_ | | Then you're disenfranchising the majority of democratic | voters, millions of citizens, in preference of ossifying | so-called criminal justice against a mere one human. Why | would you do that? What hallowed value does that serve? | | The question of what's a crime and what's valid is a | _democratic question_ fundamentally, and is and should be | mutable. | | We're in this thread, remember, because pretentious | ideologues once imprisoned an anti-war protestor for | bullshit reasons that were framed as "crimes". | mindslight wrote: | > _what 's a crime and what's valid is a democratic | question fundamentally, and is and should be mutable_ | | Sure, and the question of the legality of a given action | can also be on the ballot. Implying that someone who wins | an election should automatically get out of jail is | nonsense. One of the pillars of the bureaucratic rule of | law is making it so that no individual has autocratic | power. We already have too much of powerful politicians | and other agents of the state being effectively above the | law. | perihelions wrote: | I'm philosophizing above my pay grade, probably, but | winning a majority of votes seems to me like the | *opposite* of "autocratic power". | | If anything, to me, "convicted criminal winning an | election by majority vote" strongly pattern-matches | "effective _check against autocracy_ ". Again: look at | what the OP is, what fact patterns we're discussing in | this thread! | mindslight wrote: | > _winning a majority of votes seems to me like the | opposite of "autocratic power"_ | | No it's not. The two concepts are orthogonal, and | collapsing them to a single quality is a dangerous | fallacy. The first is about how someone gets elected to | an office - one of the cornerstones of our society is | that leaders are elected by the people. The second is | what someone in an office can legally do once they are | there - another cornerstone is that nobody is above the | rule of law. Equating the two effectively throws out the | latter. | | The distinction is very clear when it comes to a | narrowly-scoped office, or even a general executive at a | low level like the mayor of a city. It only gets fuzzier | as you go up in scale, as those charged with enforcing | the law are better poised to not enforce against | themselves. But the proper term for that is "corruption". | tshaddox wrote: | It's not clear to me why one ostensibly democratic | mechanism (the criminal justice system) should | automatically be overridden by other ostensibly | democratic mechanism (an election). | | It seems pretty clearly undemocratic to me to say that | you get out of jail if you win an election (or that the | justice system somehow applies less to you if you're an | elected official). | perihelions wrote: | One's direct and one's second-order indirect. It'd be | like the bash shell saying you can't do something as sudo | because a config file you edited last year overrules it. | | Democracy is root. | [deleted] | anikan_vader wrote: | For example, the IRA member Bobby Sands was elected to the | UK parliament while in prison during his (subsequently | fatal) hunger strike. Parliament then immediately passed a | law banning people from running for parliament from jail. | | Of course, the UK is a monarchy, not a republic, so its | relevance to the subject at hand is somewhat dubious. | LAC-Tech wrote: | The UK is only a monarchy at the ceremonial level. | Officially it's mostly a parliamentary democracy, in | practice it's mostly a bureaucracy. | anikan_vader wrote: | >> The UK is only a monarchy at the ceremonial level. | | This is a common claim, but I can't say that I agree. The | House of Lords holds real power, as does the king in his | role as head of state. The UK is not an absolute monarchy | by any means, but the king is far more than just a | figurehead [1]. | | [1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/how- | archaic-... | LAC-Tech wrote: | One can only hope Charles disbands parliament and puts it | to the test. For once I hope the fear mongers at the | Guardian are right, but I suspect that I am, sadly. | pjc50 wrote: | Always interesting to see how certain kinds of political speech | were never really protected by the First Amendment. | | And to remember that WW1 was ended, in part, by labour action: | the October Revolution in Russia, and the Kiel Mutiny in Germany. | | The full speech is here: https://genius.com/Eugene-v-debs-anti- | war-speech-annotated | est31 wrote: | > And to remember that WW1 was ended, in part, by labour | action: the October Revolution in Russia, and the Kiel Mutiny | in Germany. | | I don't know much about Russia, Germany certainly has given | Lenin a train ticket so that he could participate in that | revolution, because they thought that it would help their | interests. But for Germany, the theory that Germany lost the | war because of the revolution is the so called | "Dolchstosslegende", a right wing conspiracy theory. Germany | has already lost the war before that revolution. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth | Vespasian wrote: | Yes and the mutiny did happen in part because the German navy | planned for a Last-Hurrah-Suicide mission to "die an honorful | death" | | The sailors were not cool with that and decided to not be | killed on the final stretch of a pointless war | | That was the final straw and was used to kick of the | revolution. The monarchy already had lost most of its | authority by that point. | lostlogin wrote: | > Germany certainly has given Lenin a train ticket | | This was fascinating and amazingly conniving. | | The Churchill quote, saying Lenin was smuggled back into | Russia "in a sealed truck like a plague bacillus" is quite | the imagery. | | Lenin on the Train by Catherine Merridale covers it well. | MarkMarine wrote: | I find his speech to the court, knowing full well he was headed | to jail for the crime of speaking out against the war, more | powerful. | | He left half the members of the court, the people who later | convicted him, in tears. | | Full speech here: | http://www.emersonkent.com/speeches/address_to_the_court.htm | cdmckay wrote: | And yet they still sent him to die in prison | simfree wrote: | They could have done a jury nullification. | pooper wrote: | It isn't that easy. | | The judges are all crooks and liars and will make you pay | because you didn't "respect my authority" (read in the | voice of the petulant child, Eric Cartman from the | cartoon show South Park). | | In fact, I feel like I am doing something illegal just by | typing this. We cannot win in a court of law. They will | simply replace us if we show them any brain activity. | | You must reach a unanimous not guilty verdict, not | because of jury nullification but because you genuinely | believe the defendant is not guilty. | | > For the most part, the answer is no. You should NOT | discuss jury nullification with your fellow jurors. | | > It is well-established that it is perfectly legal for a | juror to vote not guilty for any reason they believe is | just. However, courts have also decided that they can | remove jurors for considering their option to | conscientiously acquit. | | > This applies anytime until the verdict is officially | rendered. Even as late as deliberations, if a disgruntled | fellow juror decides to tattle on you to the judge, you | could be replaced with an alternate juror. We recommend | not openly discussing jury nullification during | deliberations. | | > https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/jury- | nullific... | | All normal disclaimer applies. I am not a lawyer. I anal. | Yada yada. | lossolo wrote: | > The judges are all crooks and liars and will make you | pay because you didn't "respect my authority" | | Generalizations like that are not helpful, I am not a | lawyer and I won in court with judge, he reversed his own | ruling because I've proved he was wrong based on Supreme | Court rulings. | pooper wrote: | If you find me any precedent showing that I can openly | discuss jury nullification without the judge throwing the | book at me, I will be very indebted to you. Until then, | the point stands. | | They do not take kindly any effort to disrespect them. | Remember, a court of law has authority because we as a | society gives them this authority. Since we don't live by | divine rights of kings, they do not have any claim to | authority other than through us, the people. This is the | very foundation of our democracy. I agree that usually | this is inflammatory language but in this specific case, | you must walk into court assuming they are out to get you | if you discuss jury nullification. | | Once again, this is not legal advice. I anal. | 3a2d29 wrote: | Not being able to talk about jury nullification does not | mean all judges are crooks. | | The reason people try to discourage "jury nullification" | is because if a law is unjust, it should be removed, not | be in place for certain juries to give _some_ people | passes. | | The law should be the law. If you allow juries to decide | to give "innocent" verdicts even if someone broke it, | then congrats you have made a system where the jury gets | to decide randomly if they want to enforce something. | pooper wrote: | > The law should be the law. If you allow juries to | decide to give "innocent" verdicts even if someone broke | it, then congrats you have made a system where the jury | gets to decide randomly if they want to enforce | something. | | This is the world we live in though. Imagine telling | someone who is facing life in prison "tough luck but we | need to fix the law first". | | 1. Congress is pretty much deadlocked and has been for | decades. | | 2. This guy, Michael Flynn[flynn], received a | presidential pardon. | | 3. Prosecution routinely uses its "discretion" on which | cases to bring forward and what charges it wants to | recommend. Police / law enforcement uses its "discretion" | as well. | | If there is any justice, either this guy should serve his | full sentence or we should immediately release anyone and | everyone convicted of "lying to federal agents[making | false statements]" from prison declaring the insane law | null and void. | | [flynn] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn | | [making false statements] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements | 3a2d29 wrote: | Right but isn't the whole issue we have with white people | walking free after crimes while black people face the | actual punishment all because of this exact issue? | | White college girl has weed, jury nullifies. Black | unemployed guy has weed, jail. | hax0ron3 wrote: | >if a law is unjust, it should be removed | | Yeah but by the time a person is actually on trial, | trying to change the law that they are facing is probably | too late, isn't it? And the system is slow and is | dominated by the rich and powerful subset of society, so | trying to change the law may not work anyway. | | >If you allow juries to decide to give "innocent" | verdicts even if someone broke it, then congrats you have | made a system where the jury gets to decide randomly if | they want to enforce something. | | To some extent, this will happen one way or another. If I | was on a jury, I would not vote to convict someone for | breaking a law that I dislike. And a jury is already | random in the sense that it's a somewhat random selection | of 12 people who may have wildly different levels of | intelligence, concern about the law, emotional states, | and so on. To some extent, a jury decides randomly in | every single trial whether they want to enforce | something. The way I see it, informing people about jury | nullification just helps to potentially win back some | power for what myself and those I care about. | 3a2d29 wrote: | > a jury decides randomly in every single trial whether | they want to enforce something. | | Isn't that jury nullification? That's the exact thing I | am saying, shouldn't happen. | Thiez wrote: | The police and prosecutor already have that power, to | decide randomly if they want to enforce something. What | harm would a little additional capriciousness do? | 3a2d29 wrote: | So you would be pro a situation like this: | | White college kid is caught with intent-to-distribute | amount of weed, jury allows them to walk away even though | they are guilty. | | Black kid is caught with intent-to-distribute amount of | weed, jury decides to enforce jail time this time. | | I mean what harm would it do? | Thiez wrote: | I am not from a country that uses juries, but your | hypothetical situation probably happens daily already. | You need only look at the statistics to see that being | black (or to a lesser degree: being a man) significantly | increases the odds of a guilty verdict in the USA. To | stick to your drugs example, your white kid is more | likely to have cocaine, and the black one crack. And one | of these drugs has much more severe sentencing guidelines | than the other... | 3a2d29 wrote: | Right which is why I am saying jury nullification is bad. | These situations happen because of it. | labster wrote: | > I anal. | | Yes you are, pooper, yes you are. | | Jury nullification is not some divine right, it's an | unintended consequence of jury secrecy. It's like going | into a job interview at Twitter, and just talking about | how everything is exploited by bots, and then you just | complain about how you aren't allowed free speech on the | platform. Who would hire you? | | Wait, bad example. | vore wrote: | Jury nullification is the negative right of not punishing | jurors for their verdicts, not the positive right of | jurors being able to pick verdicts that rule against laws | they don't like. | | We can talk all about how jury nullification allows the | jury to dismiss unjust laws, but do keep in mind the oath | a juror is required to swear: Do you and | each of you solemnly swear that you will well and truly | try and a true deliverance make between the United States | and ______, the defendant at the bar, and a true verdict | render according to the evidence, so help you God? | | Threatening jury nullification is a clear violation of | the oath (definitely not "a true verdict rendered | according to the evidence") and the judge is well within | their right to hold you in contempt of court for | violating that oath. | shadowgovt wrote: | He didn't die in prison. | kasey_junk wrote: | He didn't die in prison but did die of problems he | developed in prison. | alistairSH wrote: | Debs was 64 when sentenced to 10 years in prison. He | likely would have died there if Harding had not commuted | his sentence to time served. As noted, Debs eventually | passed from health problems developed while imprisoned. | MarkMarine wrote: | "While there is a lower class, I am in it. While there is a | criminal element, I am of it. While there is a soul in | prison, I am not free." | | I think to hear him tell it, he was already in prison. | AlbertCory wrote: | > WW1 was ended, in part, by labour action: the October | Revolution in Russia, and the Kiel Mutiny in Germany | | "in part" saves you there. Otherwise it's nonsense. | | WW1 was _certainly_ not ended by the October Revolution. If | anything, it made the war 10x worse, by freeing German troops | for Ludendorff 's 1918 offensive, which almost succeeded. | | The Kiel Mutiny? Maybe accelerated the end by a few days. The | Germans were already seeking an Armistice. | | > certain kinds of political speech were never really protected | | Adams and Wilson were indeed villains here. Lincoln suspended | *habeas corpus." Roosevelt sent Japanese-Americans to the | internment camps. | philistine wrote: | Using in part is perfectly fine because for the Russians, the | war was completely ended due to labour action. They owe their | war's end to that. | | Was it the right decision, or did it end up losing more lives | in the long term? Whole other discussion. | [deleted] | AlbertCory wrote: | Leaving aside the toll of Communism over its 72 years: | | There was a Russian Civil War, which we don't hear much | about. So the war hadn't really ended for them. There was | also a war between Russia and Poland. | | I looked some for a total of "WW I casualties by year" | table but didn't find one; only "casualties by country." | The significance would be "giant German offensive; | therefore giant casualties." | | In any case, I don't think there's much of a case for the | hypothesis "Russian Revolution saved lives." | compiskey wrote: | IIAOPSW wrote: | throckmortra wrote: | Where was he arguing for Communism? Do you believe pro-labor | == Communism? Your post reads as knee-jerk and paranoid | dsfyu404ed wrote: | It's beyond dishonest to frame him as paranoid for making | the connection when the person he's replying made that | connection for him. | | He might just be pro-labor but not pro-communist. | throckmortra wrote: | Where did he make the connection? | chefandy wrote: | Yeah don't you hate it when people inject their obvious | political bias into comments? | enkid wrote: | You're ignoring the Russian Civil War, which killed millions | more. It's not like the October Revolution was a clean stop to | the violence. And even after the end of the Civil War, the | political violence didn't end. | [deleted] | anon291 wrote: | Using examples of terrible decisions in order to justify | continuing to make bad decisions is a terrible way to govern. | Spooky23 wrote: | There's always a reactionary push to silence people for their | own good. | | John Adams kicked it off, and Woodrow Wilson's craven politics | represented a moment where the country could have moved in an | awful direction. | | It's unfortunate that we live in an era where many people have | mastered the art of mass manipulation. We're in an era where | we're vulnerable to the same sort of grinding warfare that WW1 | became, and the information landscape is a barren one full of | propaganda and junk. | vkou wrote: | No, we don't silence people for their own good, we silence | people for our own good. | Spooky23 wrote: | Sure. The problem is, who is "us" and who is "them". | Unfortunately the 20th century shows what people are | capable of in pursuit of protecting "our" stuff, whatever | that may be. | rektide wrote: | I havent opened it yet but the book _American Midnight_ came | highly highly recommended, which covers this time period & this | event. | | A power hungry intolerant federal government mandating War-fervor | & jingoism, suppressing all outside voices (largely liberal & | progressive), clamping down on how people think & what they say. | passing the Sedition Act & charging many under these wartime | powers, before it's repeal. | | This book supposedly makes quite the case for this being one of | thr darkest times in America. Excited scared/sad to start reading | it. | dry_soup wrote: | Ken White (of "Popehat" twitter fame) has a great article | explaining how this and similar court cases during the first | world war are the origin of the (poor) "fire in a crowded | theater" argument against certain kinds of free speech: | | https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... | the_optimist wrote: | lend000 wrote: | I never understood why Woodrow Wilson is lauded in the history | books, and comes out in historians' presidential rankings quite | well. His administration (and he personally) had a pattern of | suppressing free speech with prison time. That, and he created | the Federal Reserve (which then went on to create the Great | Depression, as it slowly learned to use its powers). Whether or | not you think a central bank is a good thing, it certainly belies | his ideology that the government knows best. | philwelch wrote: | I've seen a lot of negative backlash against Wilson's legacy in | recent years, to the point of verging on overreaction. He is in | an awkward position since he was too progressive for | conservative tastes and too racist for liberal tastes. The main | positive thing people used to say about Wilson's legacy was his | championing of liberal internationalism, combined with lots of | bemoaning the fact that the US didn't ratify Versailles or join | the League of Nations due to isolationist obstruction in the | Senate. | rayiner wrote: | To be clear, Wilson was more racist than the conservatives of | the period. | philwelch wrote: | Indeed; I didn't mean to understate the point. | rayiner wrote: | Wilson was "one of their own"--a professor at Princeton. He was | also the founder of the ideology of governance by credentialed | experts, which is unsurprisingly popular among highly | credentialed people, like historians. | hax0ron3 wrote: | Also, Wilson got the United States into World War One, which | helped to put the US on its trajectory to eventually being | involved in World War Two and subsequently becoming the | world's top geopolitical power. So I suppose that people who | think that it was good for the United States to be involved | in World War Two and/or people who think that it is good for | the United States to be the world's top geopolitical power - | which is a pretty large number of people, at least in the | West - have those reasons to like Wilson. | opo wrote: | Wilson was also very racist: | | >...While Wilson's tenure is often noted for progressive | achievement, his time in office was one of unprecedented | regression in regard to racial equality.[1] He removed most | federal officeholders who were African Americans, his | administration imposed segregation policies, and instituted a | policy requiring a photo for federal job applicants. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson_and_race | [deleted] | Aunche wrote: | The Federal Reserve absolutely did not cause the Great | Depression. Economic crashes occurred at least once a decade | since beginning of American history, and as the economy grew | more more interconnected and less self sufficient, economic | crashes tended to be worse than the last, culminating with the | Great Depression. Economists overwhelmingly agree that the | Fed's biggest blunder during the Great Depression was not going | far enough. It was only with what I'm sure you would call | "money printing" enabled by the Fed to finance WWII, that the | economy truly recovered. | lend000 wrote: | Most people can't name any specific recession prior to the | creation of the Federal Reserve, but everyone has heard of | the Great Depression. A sibling commenter posted some good | analyses, but the gist of it is that they tried tightening | the money supply at the worst possible time (something the | modern Fed avoids at all cost, at the expense of increasing | wealth inequality by artificially inflating the value of | assets whenever they start to dip). | 988747 wrote: | Small-scale economic downturns did happen once a decade, | because that's natural in a healthy economy. Federal Reserve | tried to prevent a downturn in 1929, but their misguided | monetary policies made it two orders of magnitude worse | instead. Milton Friedman once wrote a great analysis on this: | https://fee.org/articles/the-great-depression-according- | to-m... | MR4D wrote: | I highly recommend ready "The Panic of 1907". After that, I | think you might come to a different conclusion. | | Even if you don't change your mind, it's still a great read | for those fascinated with panics and depressions. | choxi wrote: | Do you mean this? | https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/panic-of-1907 | | Because that name is also used to describe the event, | wasn't sure if you meant a specific book or article. | MR4D wrote: | Sorry, I should have included the link - I meant the | book: | | https://www.amazon.com/Panic-1907-Lessons-Learned- | Markets/dp... | narrator wrote: | The supreme court case Schenck v. United States said at the time | that speech discouraging people from being drafted was | prohibited. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States | LgWoodenBadger wrote: | The Supreme Court has made many awful rulings with respect to | the first amendment. | | Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire is another one. | | Just astoundingly awful | lr4444lr wrote: | Not arguing that, but I don't think any subsequent case has | ever been judged by any court where the prevailing opinion | cited Chaplinsky. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | Put another way- it was speech telling people to break the law. | klplotx wrote: | FYI, Schenck v. United States was overturned in 1969 | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States): | | "In 1969, Schenck was largely overturned by Brandenburg v. | Ohio, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which | would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless | action (e.g. a riot)." | | So we can tell other people to avoid the draft now, even in a | dry bureaucratic sense. In real life of course the draft is | slavery and immoral, as Ayn Rand and many others have pointed | out. | ilaksh wrote: | I have found general anti-war comments I have made here and | elsewhere online to be unpopular. If WWIII starts, its likely | that comments against participating or legitimizing it will be | flagged here on HN. | | The thing that people should understand is that wars are | strategic. Any moral justification is just propaganda. The | paradigm is "might makes right" and has been for millennia. The | American Empire is a great example, and the Chinese Empire that | comes after it will be the same. But that will be even shorter- | lived than the Americans because AI will probably take control | soon after. On a large scale, humanity operates at a moral level | similar to that of ant colonies. | fullsend wrote: | The Chinese Empire is a fantasy. China will remain a great | factory and little else. Everything there is still done using | personal connections (eg. corruption). The basis of a globe | spanning empire this system is not. When all your growth is due | to external investment, external contracts, and external | culture/politics, you can't become the center. | ilaksh wrote: | Those common criticisms of their political system are valid, | and certainly in some ways the west is more advanced. But | realistically western political systems have their own severe | (but different) problems, and the Chinese systems have their | own advantages. | | As I said, the bottom line for the world order seems to be | deployment of force. Right now the most relevant force | paradigms as far as I can tell are mass information control | and bio-warfare (nuclear has largely been tabled.) The | authoritarianism has given China an advantage in terms of | controlling information and infection and that has been | strongly proven out. | [deleted] | boomskats wrote: | I'm sorry, could you please repost your argument in the form of | TikTok, or one of those Youtube short videos? I really | struggled to remember any context past those big words in that | second sentence. | | Ooh look! A squirrel! <scrolls> | Quequau wrote: | It's a minor thing I know... but the man's name is Eugene Victor | Debs and it's usually printed as "Eugene V. Debs". So the "V" | stands for Victor and not "versus". The title makes it seem sorta | like a lawsuit "Eugene vs. Debs". | pimlottc wrote: | It's not minor, changing it to "vs" makes the sentence | incomprehensible... I didn't understand what was going on until | I read your helpful comment. | [deleted] | MikeMaven wrote: | geofft wrote: | The link seems to be down, but this is the speech itself: | https://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1918/canton.htm | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | It's not protected speech to tell people to break the law. He | didn't go to prison for his beliefs, he went to prison for | telling people to break the law. | Zak wrote: | Later cases have held that it can be. Calling for imminent | lawless actions isn't, but claiming a law is unjust and | generally shouldn't be followed is usually protected speech. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | The point is that he didn't go to prison for giving an anti- | war speech, it was also a call to action to break the law. | Jefenry wrote: | If I see any runaway slaves coming through I'll be sure not to | tell my neighbors we should try and hide them. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | I don't know what point you are trying to make. | [deleted] | Tuna-Fish wrote: | That it has been in the past, and still often is in some | cases, moral to tell people to break the law, and immoral | to tell them they shouldn't. | shadowgovt wrote: | I don't think that's in dispute. Moral speech is not | always protected speech. | retrac wrote: | Most of us would find a law that prohibits encouraging | slaves from revolting or freeing themselves; to be horrid. | Arguments that such laws don't really restrict freedom of | speech because they're only encouraging an illegal act, | would ring quite hollow. You might well be accused of | sophistry if you made the argument seriously today; the act | that's illegal to advocate is a fundamental right of all | men, after all. | | Conscripts are enslaved. What some may call a mutiny of | conscripts others might call a slave rebellion. Let's just | take that axiomatically for now. Obviously not all agree. | But many accept that argument completely. Arguing it does | not infringe free speech to call for people to free | themselves, because it's only prohibiting the encouragement | of a crime rings similarly hollow, from that perspective. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | The draft is unjust (in my opinion) but what happens if | speech telling people to break other laws is protected? | | What if I urge people, in a riveting call to action | speech, to kill X celebrity? | Zak wrote: | That's a grey area. The prosecution would need to prove | that you _intended_ for someone to commit the murder, | that you advocated its _imminent_ commission (or at least | the imminent initiation of steps toward the crime), and | that you believed your advocacy of such crime was likely | to lead to someone carrying it out. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | > What if I urge people, in a riveting call to action | speech, to kill X celebrity or Y ethnic group? | | I think the former is specific enough to be legally | problematic, but I was actually under the impression that | the second one is technically legal? ( _morally_ awful, | but _legally_ unprosecutable) | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | I think you're right. It's not specific. Edited my | comment. | nradov wrote: | Such speech would only place you in legal jeopardy if it | contains a direct and credible incitement to violence. If | you simply said something like, "Let's kill all the | Elbonians!" and nothing more then it would still be | considered protected speech under current US Supreme | Court precedents. | lr4444lr wrote: | All true, but no one AFAIK was threatening abolitionists | who used legal due process to actually pass the 13th | amendment on free speech grounds. That activity is not | the same as openly telling people to aid and abet | breaking the current law, or conscientious objection. | Zak wrote: | The southern states attempted to secede from the country, | and fought a civil war that killed almost a million | people to prevent the 13th amendment from passing. | ZeroGravitas wrote: | > In the South abolitionism was illegal, and abolitionist | publications, like The Liberator, could not be sent to | Southern post offices. Amos Dresser, a white alumnus of | Lane Theological Seminary, was publicly whipped in | Nashville, Tennessee for possessing abolitionist | publications.[57][58] | vkou wrote: | That conundrum was not resolved through speech, but through | war. And, unfortunately, that war did not go far enough, as | slaveowner politics quickly reasserted themselves. | aizyuval wrote: | War is the worst, and yet it serms to be so common and often "The | only choice" (allegedly. As it was in WW1). | | It's a viscous cycle. It sucks. | lostlogin wrote: | It is thick, but wilfully. I think you (or autocorrect) mean | vicious. | gpm wrote: | I think it's quite rare that war is the only viable choice _for | both sides_ , but probably reasonably frequently the case that | war is the only viable choice _for one side_. Sort of like how | many crimes require both a victim and a perpetrator, but only | one side is making the choice. | | It's also the case that in many modern wars both sides will | claim to be the side with no choice though. Also that having | entered a war by choice doesn't necessarily imply that it's | still possible to exit the war by choice. | photochemsyn wrote: | There's a huge taboo in the United States against explicitly | pointing out the economic agendas behind foreign wars. You can go | up on a soapbox and talk about 'humanitarian concerns and | defending democracy abroad' (typical neoliberal-Democratic | drivel) or 'patriotism, national security and fighting terror' | (typical neocon-Republican drivel), but noting that war is a huge | profit center for various interests, that's not really allowed. | | For example, the Iraq War really was related to oil - Saddam had | no WMDs, no ties with Al Qaeda, but he was moving his oil money | out of the petrodollar recycling system, which was a huge threat | to global dollar hegemony and the balance-of-payements issue (see | capital accounts vs. current accounts). Plus, it was a huge cash | cow for government contracts and the military procurement system, | which always gets hungry during peacetime. GW Bush and the | neocons of course sold this in their preferred manner. | | The same thing happened with Libya and Syria, only now it was the | other set of talking points - although again, Qaddafi was | promoting pan-African unity, an alternative currency, | independence from Europe and the USA on oil sales, closer ties to | Russia and China, etc. Assad backed out of a Saudi-USA-Israeli | pipeline deal in 2009 and went for the Russia-Iran pipeline | instead (plus lots of electricity integration with Iran), so | Obama signed off on the CIA overthrow/regime change directive. If | you want more strong evidence that their 'humanitarian | democractic' rhetoric was nonsense, look at how they treated the | pro-democracy protests in Bahrain (crushed by Saudi tanks) or the | Saudi assault on Yemen. | | It's all pretty farcical. Just admit that maintaining a global | financial empire is pretty difficult without engaging in covert | regime change and military dominance, already. Stop pretending | it's about self-defense or good works - I mean Ukraine is all | about control of natural gas sales to Europe, plus another multi- | billion injection into the domestic weapons manufacturing | complex. | satellites wrote: | To anyone curious about exploring this angle more, I recommend | Noam Chomsky's book "Imperial Ambitions." It's a collection of | interview transcripts where he discusses the US wars in the | Middle East and the political and economic motivations behind | them. It's very informative. | | But of course, American leadership will never break the facade | of doing "good." The propaganda is too effective. It's way | easier to maintain false narratives that keep the population | looking the other way than to come out and say why you really | want to invade other countries. | tchalla wrote: | > There's a huge taboo in the United States against explicitly | pointing out the economic agendas behind foreign wars. | | The taboo is a feature, not a bug. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Informatio... | lr4444lr wrote: | A taboo? Maybe I was (un?)fortunate to be on a college campus | during the launch of the second Iraq War, but the "war for oil" | commonplace was the dominant narrative. Anyone offering an | alternative hypothesis besides that, or GW Bush finishing his | father's legacy from 1991 was practically laughed at. | satellites wrote: | True, but that's on the bubble of a college campus. In the | media and in non-college circles it was close to heresy to | criticize the war during the first few years. Much more so to | say it was a profit-driven sham. | | Not to say no one was speaking out about it, but the vastly | dominant narrative was to support the war effort and ignore | the corruption. | throwawaymaths wrote: | I strongly believe it was a combination of bush finishing his | daddy's legacy + Hussein playing into the narrative to try to | gain power and attention.Adam curtis' hypernormalization BBC | documentary is a very good intro to the topic: it was very | eye opening, I had no idea that (according to many western | intelligence outfits) _almost certainly_ Qaddafi was NOT | responsible for pan an lockerbie. Why he didn 't deny it and | why the intelligence agencies didn't bother going after the | truth is answered by curtis' thesis. | [deleted] | Keysh wrote: | > The same thing happened with Libya and Syria, only now it was | the other set of talking points - although again, Qaddafi was | promoting pan-African unity, an alternative currency, | independence from Europe and the USA on oil sales, closer ties | to Russia and China, etc. Assad backed out of a Saudi-USA- | Israeli pipeline deal in 2009 and went for the Russia-Iran | pipeline instead (plus lots of electricity integration with | Iran), so Obama signed off on the CIA overthrow/regime change | directive. | | Oh, bollocks. In what universe did the US _go to war_ with | Assad 's regime? The US tepidly tried arming a few of the (non- | fundamentalist) rebel groups once they appeared, but nothing | more than that. (Presumably you think the Arab Spring uprisings | in Tunisia and Egypt were caused by the CIA, too, for some | unfathomable reason.) And how, exactly, has the US _profited_ | monetarily from what happened in Libya and Syria? | | (Gaddafi was actually getting _closer_ to the US and Europe; in | 2004 he gave up his nuclear weapons program in return for | better relations with the West. As for "pan-African unity" -- | sure, from the guy who invaded Chad to steal land from it. No | one took his bombast seriously.) | rayiner wrote: | There's no taboo about it. I was spouting the "we invaded Iraq | for the oil" theory myself when I was a college student at the | time. But in hindsight we didn't get any oil out of that war. | We weren't even trying. | | The intervening 20 years has made clear that there's no | realpolitik rational decision making at play here. Take Ukraine | for example. Is there oil in Ukraine? No, it's Russia that has | the oil. So why do we give a shit about Ukraine? Because | Americans really are just that childishly idealistic when it | comes to foreign policy. They believe in good versus evil and | that America needs to intervene on the side of good. | tdba wrote: | I used to believe the Iraq War was about oil too, but the | theory doesn't really stand up when you consider that there | were several much easier ways for the US to secure an oil | supply in the early 2000s (as other commenters have noted). | Instead, I suggest you read about the Wolfowitz Doctrine | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine), named after | Paul Wolfowitz, the man who CNN in 2003 called the "Godfather | of the Iraq War" (https://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/29/ti | mep.wolfowitz.t...). Enjoy the rabbit hole. | throwawaymaths wrote: | Exactly. The us did not get any oil out of Iraq anyways, most | of it is being extracted by a French company (total) iirc. | yesbut wrote: | Well, it was for oil. We even had the Oil for Food | sanctions program in the lead up. The result didn't work | out in the US' favor, Iraq basically kicked us out. | | But ultimately I think the oil was a secondary goal. The | goal was, and is, endless military conflict as a means to | funnel public funds into the military industrial complex. | It doesn't matter if "we win" or not, hell we haven't won a | war in decades. The point is to maintain persistent | instability as a motivator for continued military budget | increases. Ukraine is a prime example. All NATO member | spending has increased, as has India, China, Iran, and | Brazil. The media and politicians just use the "spread | democracy" type rhetoric as a sales pitch for the public. | simonh wrote: | I've noticed a tendency in the US to assume that everything | that happens in the world is caused by internal US interests. | That all international issues get re-cast in domestic political | terms. | | Did the US start the Libyan civil war? No, in fact the US was | one of the last of the western militaries to get involved, | after Canada, France and the UK. The US initially played a | minor role. | | Did the US instigate the Syrian civil war? Again, no, the US | only involved when IS got involved. | | I watched an interview with Tulsi Gabbard where she said the | Ukraine War was caused by US corporations that profit from | selling weapons. I mean what's the theory, that Lockheed | persuaded Putin to invade Ukraine? It's absurd. I get that she | hates the military industrial complex, and maybe she has many | valid reasons, but in this case she's delusional. | | I'm not at all saying there aren't factions in the US that do | advocate military adventurism, and profit from it. That's a | real thing. The second Gulf war is an example, I'll give you | that one, but even in that case that was just one of many | factors and I don't think it would have been decisive by | itself. Also yes, the west absolutely compromises principles | for geopolitical and economic interests. But this idea that all | foreign conflicts are a plot by the military industrial complex | is a bit absurd. It's not always all about you, guys. | vkou wrote: | The petrodollar is an interesting theory, but I have strong | doubts about it. Global dollar-denominated oil trade is a tiny | drop in the bucket of global dollar-denominated trade - not a | sacred cornerstone that must be protected. | | Geo-political power games (Gulf War I) and outright stupidity | (Gulf War II) seem like the more likely catalysts for the Iraq | war (And you noted a few of the causes of the Libyan one). | nonrandomstring wrote: | Public opinion and conflict seem to have a complex relation and | predictable phases that follow the seasons of war. | | Before the show starts, jingoism is emergent and it ought to be | illegal to rattle sabres and call for blood where peace is still | possible. That changes quickly, there is a definite threshold. | | Once the game is on, one has to move with the crowd. To not | support the war is demoralising, treacherous even. And this rises | as the first body bags come home and mothers weep. | | In the middle phase, people are stoic and quiet. Soldiers have "a | job to do" and we must "grin and bear it". | | Without swift victory, then comes the point of fatigue and | economic pain. Too many dead children on the TV. But the | protestors are in a minority and need great courage to point the | way to an exit. That's when tactical silencing of dissent can | happen. The idea that opposing the war is the same as siding with | the enemy comes to the fore. | | As the tide turns, even millions on the streets (Vietnam, Iraq), | or the advice of generals (Afghanistan) cannot overcome the pride | of miscalculating leaders. But at that point public opinion has | passed the threshold the other way. | | By the end it is shameful to still support a lost war (and | sometimes, depending on the cost, even a victorious one). | | Long before it ended WWI was universally seen as "insane" by all | sides. | | Perhaps my historical education is wanting, but only the second | world war seems to have a clear narrative of victory over evil, | with a constancy of support for Allied triumph which I think even | the exhausted Germans and Japanese felt toward the end. That | "just war" model is wheeled out and is still active apropos | Ukraine. | lettergram wrote: | I recommend reading books from the German perspective of WWII. | | > Perhaps my historical education is wanting, but only the | second world war seems to have a clear narrative of victory | over evil, with a constancy of support for Allied triumph which | I think even the exhausted Germans and Japanese felt toward the | end. | | The Germans largely were destitute after WWI and they weren't | allowed heavy industry, had to pay restitution, etc. combined | with hyper-inflation and famine it was rough for the 15 years | or more after the war. | | Combine with the west pushing their ideology, including | eugenics. It created a situation where the Germans felt they | were being crushed. Similarly, the US cut off oil and resources | to Japan. They felt like the world was against them. They had | to quickly lash out to gain control of oil and rubber supplies | (hence war in the pacific). Germans went after the oil rich | regions in Africa and Russia / towards Iran. | | Ultimately, it was a war of resources. Japan and Germany felt | they were being boxed in and attempted to assert themselves. | They both lost and in the 80 year since they've been dominated | by the Anglo-Saxon culture. Both Germany and Japan do have | their flavor of the culture, but theirs a Starbucks on most | corners, a western take on the world and largely global-centric | world view. | | If you want to see a contrast, Russia, China, Iran, etc kept | their cultural views and have not been nearly as Anglo-ized; | it's hard to say the Germans or Japanese were wrong in their | assessment. | nonrandomstring wrote: | Thanks for thoughtful comments. | | I do read widely and appreciate your suggestion. What do you | recommend as the must-read, accessible and honest and | intelligent account of civilian life in Germany during that | period. Thanks. | lostlogin wrote: | I'm not the OP but like reading about the interwar period, | particularly in Russia. You really can't view The Second | World War in isolation, as it was directly related to World | War One, particular in Germany and Russia. It was utter | chaos politically and following any thread though the | period is very complicated. It isn't really about Germany, | but gives an idea of the complexity of the era and of | German politics, Lenin on the Train by Catherine Merridale | is a good read. | AntiRemoteWork wrote: ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-11-26 23:00 UTC)