Anti- War Voices

 

As we have learned about Government powers though out the course we have discussed that whenever there are times of war, the government tends to have harder rules on anti-war voices. 

The importance of having anti-war voices is so that people are able to hear out many different opinions.

The main reason that voices are silenced during war times is because the government feels like it needs to have unity as a country. 

So having people protest against a war that the government feels is justified. 

A case that addresses this is Schenck v. United States, which states that they Government can restrict voices that “Would create clear and present danger that they bring about substantive evils that congress has a right to prevent”.  

Even though the United States Government is a lateral system It is also in a way a business. 

What I mean by this is that through we have a Government that is able to make life altering laws, they still have to take into account things like good and bad press. 

Imagine for a moment that you worked for a huge company that the world generally relied on, say a water company that supplied 50% of the worlds clean water.

 Let’s also say that in this scenario the people who partake in their water have to pay for it for their homes using their own money. 

If you as an employee discover that said water company was using its resources which were funded by the money of its customers; to make a terrible economic deal with another company that could possibly jeopardize the safety of the water everyone consumes, you may feel a need to say something. 

However since you work for the company they may try an silence you even though you feel what you have to say is valid and could be helpful.

This is the same ideology behind why the government shouldn’t silence legitimate anti-war voices. In order to have a democracy you have to be open to hearing different ideas, it is a hard truth but still the truth.

 However, there is an emphasis on hearing different ideas. The thoughts and ideas of anti war voices don’t have to be enforced. 

The general public just wants the option to hear out these opposing opinions. This is the same thing we do everyday in a court room. 

If someone is on trial for murder, you get to have a defense and a prosecution both on opposing sides both fighting for a different outcome. 

All the jury has to do is listen and asses which argument they deem to have more validity. So if we as a people do this in courtrooms why would we not not do it on the internet?

The reason majority of the voices on the anti war website have predominantly never been hears is most likely because of the way news coverage works. Certain news outlets tend to lean on one side of the political poll. 

So if certain voices are threatening the core ideas of a news outlet, they will definitely be less inclined to publish it. 

Overall, I think this is a great example of the real world censorship that a lot of people face in America. We are always taught as a society  to be approachable and make out topics palatable. 

However, that is not always the case sometimes you have to have the hard conversations. With as uncomfortable as it may be, nothing has ever been changed in the comfort zone.