The Progressive Era

Recently, I have visited the websites of ANTIWAR.COM and American Conservative, and my findings were quite interesting. Let's jump into it.

 

First, in both of these sites, it is easy to notice that the writers corresponding to them are all very strong anti-war voices that never seem to appear in the mainstream news. Have you heard of these websites before? I know I haven't. 

 

Let's talk about ANTIWAR.COM. You open the webpage, and BOOM, lists of articles, news reports, media, columnists, and topic bullet points. This page is overflowing with information and research. let alone, the columnist's section is overflowing with names, it takes an adequate scroll to view the entire list of names presented in a small font. Obviously, this is an important site to many people, and just based on the presentation of the page, this is no joking matter. What baffles me the most is that if these researchers and writers of ANTIWAR.COM clearly know how to publish, research, and write, why don't news agencies and news outlets acknowledge them? I mean, put this in perspective- these individuals have done extensive, quickly presented research, which is readily available on a public site, why wouldn’t people consider using this site as an adequate source of information? You also have the advantage of various viewpoints and opinions which could definitely be beneficial to interviews regarding opinion stories. Well, here's the reality. As we consider our history, we can acknowledge topics such as the Role of Dissent and the First Amendment protecting it which was a cause of friction given a majority of disagreement with an opinion- such as anti-war. Historically, the Progressive Era was fired up by World War One anti-war activists who specifically did not want America to become involved, soon following, they were persecuted for their anti-war views and hundreds of individuals were thrown in jail for voicing their opinions. Today, the United States Government is waging military operations all over the world, This is almost déjà vu to the silence of antiwar individuals speaking their opinions. It would make sense as to why the large majority of us have never even heard of sites like ANTIWAR.COM and The American Conservative. It sure looks like a repeated behavioral pattern of the past if you ask me. 

 

Onto The American Conservative, While the site may not nearly be as jampacked with buzzing information as the antiwar site, it provides viewers with countless articles, media, And quite organized lists of blogs, podcasts, categories, events, and even a fellows program. The American conservative website looks like an average newspaper or reporting website and most certainly does not appear as abrasive or forceful with their opinions, it appears much more professional than ANTIWAR.COM However, there are still articles with titles such as "Another General Wants Forever War in Iraq" under the conservatives Military and defense section. Just enough to cause friction to be seen as disrespect towards the government. 

 

Obviously, the government is going to do the best they can to not necessarily silence, but to in a way quiet sites such as ANTIWAR and The American Conservative given that their opinions run against the United States Military and Defense Organizations, and it doesn't look good for our country. If the First Amendment protects our Freedom of Speech, why should sites like these be silenced? As seen in the two websites, political dissent is a circulating and very present aspect today. The dissatisfaction and opposition to the policies of the governing body obviously posed some kind of threat to them, and in my eyes, they're trying to keep it quiet to prevent further people agreeing with them as expressions of dissent may take forms from vocal disagreement to civil disobedience to the use of violence.

 

Here’s the verdict:  The right to free speech means that you are allowed to express yourself without interference or constraint by the government. The government can limit both the content of speech and the ability to engage in speech as long as the government has a "substantial justification". However, there is such a thing called “prohibited speech” such as fighting words like speech that would incite hatred or violence which has been constitutionally prohibited for nearly 60 years. In addition, advocating illegal activity and speech that would encourage others to engage in illegal activity is not afforded any protection of the First Amendment. So, at the end of the day, the government most likely tries to keep these websites on the back burner as they could possibly spark violence directed by dissatisfaction/ expression. The sites can still freely express their opinions safely as they are protected by the First Amendment, but if they incite any sort of violence, Illegal activity, or hatred, it is unacceptable. In summation, these sites are both walking a tight rope with the government. 

 

In my opinion, I do agree that individuals should be allowed to express their opinions on topics they don't like as we were granted the First Amendment- Freedom of Speech, it is fair. However, I would have to agree that individuals using the First Amendment as a shield to create violence and illegal activity is unacceptable. I think the websites I looked at today – the American Conservative and ANTIWAR.com are not all bad and they are entitled to express their opinions. However, if they advertised a meet up to create a riot or some sort of illegal activity, obviously it would not be OK.

http://www.antiwar.com

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/web-categories/military-defense/

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-importance-of-dissent/