The United States of America has infringed on the rights of its citizens many times in the course of its history. One need only look through the history books of any modern class and see the indignities set upon certain groups through the years. One group of Americans that has suffered from governmental restrictions is that of the press. Over the years, many laws were passed against the press to restrict them from doing their job. The seditious laws passed against the press were some of the vilest forms of restrictions ever passed against the First Amendment of the Constitution.

     The main purpose of this paper is to answer the question: How could a country that extols the virtues of liberty and individual rights pass these laws? To find answers to this question I have interviewed two professors at Bradley University, searched the Internet for valid evidence in academic webpages, found magazine articles, and bought numerous books at Barnes and Noble. Unfortunetly, I could not obtain the original court cases of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798; however, all of the research I have found points out that the reasons for the acts were both political and fear driven.

     To examine the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 in a historical context we must first examine the laws that were passed against the press, see the historical reasoning behind them, and finally come to some legal and ethical conclusions about the seditious libel laws.

     First, we must examine the laws that were passed against the press to infringe upon their rights; for only by exploring these laws, themselves, can we views its problems against the Constitution of the United States. The Alien and Sedition Acts are two separate bills and will be discussed accordingly.

     The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were a group of bills designed to restrict the liberties of immigrants and the press. The bills were voted on separately with the Alien Act being passed first, and the Sedition Act passed as an amendment to it. Although this paper is focusing on the issue of sedition, the Alien Act is important. It helps show the particular zeitgeist of that government and how it could pass these acts.

     The Alien Act of 1798 was passed due to an anti-immigrant view of that particular government. The Act applied in peacetime as well as wartime. The Age of Federalism stated that the acts worked, "not simply to aliens of an enemy nation but to any aliens upon whom for whatever reason the eye of disapproval might fall" (Elkins and McKitrick 591) This sweeping gesture allowed the government to deport any alien which not only spoke against it, but who said nothing at all. This, in essence, silenced all aliens that were located in the United States. Any ambassador of a foreign nation could be deported legally if any disparaging word was uttered at all.

     Ideally, this act should never have passed in a nation born by immigrants. The Alien Act of 1798 destroyed the nation that allowed people to escape persecution from their homelands. This was the concept that originally brought the Pilgrims here to America in the first place. The Alien Act was not alone in its injustices; the amendment to the act was just as terrible.

     The Sedition Act of 1798 punished defaming the government, defaming any elected representative of the government, and unlawful assembly by any member of the press, "whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advise, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not." In essence, this law stated that as long as you said certain words it did not matter if it caused problems or not you were punishable by law. With one sweeping gesture, Congress made sure that no one would speak against their actions without suffering the penalties.

     American History of October 1998 explained, "This bill, seemingly a violation of the Constitution's First Amendment free speech protections had a chilling effect on members of the Republican Party and its leader, Thomas Jefferson, who admitted that he feared, "to write what I think" (Gragg 22). Obviously, if one of the founders of our Constitution is afraid to write what he thinks, there is a serious violation of rights at hand. The press was under duress with the Sedition Act in place. Many writers of the Jeffersonian-Republicans were imprisoned and fines under these laws.

     Now that we have examined the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, we can explore the historical background to see why they came to be. The historical reasoning for these acts came from two major factors: the English common law roots of the Americas and the political parties of that era.

     As with most laws that were enacted by the United States, you can find their roots in English common law. The Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 holds its beginnings here, under the same rule that the Revolutionary War fought against. The act's roots in English common law is two fold: England's original seditious libel law and Englandıs history of prior restraint against the press.

     First, the Alien and Sedition Acts held a connection to England's original law of seditious libel. According to the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court, "the most important provision of the act codified the English "common law" of seditious libel" (Hall 764). The Sedition Act of 1798 was an expansion on the British form, however, the law was a liberalized form of the English version. The American form of the law did allow truth to be a defense to the charges, it was up to a jury whether or not this defense could be accepted. According to the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court, "Both of these reforms were also part of the roughly contemporaneous English Fox's Libel Act of 1792" (Hall 764) In the original common law, truth did not matter as a defense in the English form. If you were tried as seditious under the English law you were faced with prison, fines, and suspension of our publication. In some cases, you could gain death if you faced sedition against the Royal Court.

     The English have always held a tight fist over their press. In the past, their were many restrictions against the freedom of speech. Prior restraint, taxes, as well as seditious libel laws have kept the truth from being stated in the English press. Many of those restrictions have stopped, yet there are still laws against the press in England. Dr. Charles Bukowski, Professor of International Studies at Bradley University, stated in a personal interview, "The Official Secrets Act of 1889 prevents the press from revealing anything that is considered a national secret by the Department of Defense (the English equivalent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation)." According to this act, the press must have a spokesman of the DOD present to review the news before it is published. If the representative feels that the news could harm international security it censors the news. Unlike the American law, the British government does not have to show that the information could harm national security.

     Since a majority of our common law was taken from England, this history helps show the background for the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. It also provides some insight on how such laws were passed here in the United States. These were not the only reasons, though. Political reasoning also figured into the passing of the acts. These political reasons lie in two major areas of analysis: the sentiments of the time and the rival parties. Sentiments of this political era were troublesome to say the least. During this era, there was rising fear of a war developing with France. According to the The Age of Federalism, "The French had been rumbling in fitful ill humor against the United States since learning of the Jay Treaty" (Elkins and McKitrick 537). This treaty gave preferential treatment to England, France's long time enemy.

     France in response stated that they would abandon the concept of free commerce, and raid American ships with British goods as cargo. With this attack of American trade, Adams and the country were afraid of a war breaking out, which no one wanted so soon after the Revolutionary War. In response, Adams sent three delegates to France to try and negotiate a peace treaty. The result was the legendary XYZ affair. French ambassadors asked for bribes and donations to the military to fund their war with England. This scandal broke out in the American newspapers and gave Adams a bloody nose in publicity. It also aided in a rising anger toward French immigrants and views. In this feeling of ethnocentrism against English and French immigrants, John Adams and his Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. These acts gave the President and Congress power to detail and expel any immigrants seen as threats to the United States. The second part of the acts gave the current political party power to punish those who would obstruct or oppose measures of the federal government.

     Criticism soon followed after the initiation of these laws. According to the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court, "In retrospect, it does appear the acts were a product of paranoia" (Hall 764). Adams and his Federalists feared that the loss of liberties that caused the French Revolutionary War could occur in the United States. According to Professor Tom Maga of Bradley University, "Adams considered the pro-French Revolutionary sentiment in the Unites States tantamount to treason." Already at this point in history, French culture had dominated many aspects of the new country. During the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, participants wore French tricorder hats to show anger at a government that would tax alcohol producing.

     With this kind of fear in place, it is no wonder these laws were passed. With the governing body of Congress fearing a revolution taking place in America, it shows the ideas and views of the time at which the laws were made. Another reasoning of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 was the political fervor between the rivaling parties of the time.

     The major conflict was between John Adam's Federalists and Thomas Jefferson's Jeffersonian-Republicans. During the time in question, John Adams held the Presidency and the Federalists held the majority in Congress. The Jeffersonian-Republicans were very critical of the Federalist government in the press which continually angered John Adams and his followers. These two parties fought in and out of the courts for more the ten years. The Sedition Act of 1798 made sure that the Jeffersonian newspapers were silenced from their criticism about the XYZ affair and their views of the Federalist Congress.

     When the acts were originally enacted there was some dissention from non-Jeffersonian groups. The Virginia Resolution of 1798 and the Kentucky Resolution of 1799 both stated the state's dissatisfaction with the Alien and Sedition Acts. What was interesting was how they said it. The Virginia Resolution spoke against the acts altogether, Virginia being Thomas Jefferson's home state. The Kentucky Resolution was different. According to American Heritage of November 1998, "the Kentucky Resolutions decried the acts not as violations of fundamental human liberties but as invasions of the state legislaturesı turf" (Schwartz 56) None of the writers of the Kentucky Resolutions were ever punished for this criticism, which strengthens the view that the Sedition Act was aimed primarily at the Jeffersonian-Republican newspapers of the day.

     The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were not the only use of legal action to keep power for the Federalists. Even though Adams did not win his re-election to the position of President, Adams still tried to reinforce the position of the Federalists in the Supreme Court. Adams threw forwards the Judiciary Act of 1801 two weeks before he was to give up the position to Jefferson. The bill solved the problem of Supreme Court judges serving on circuit courts as well as the Supreme Court, but by creating six new circuit courts in the process. Adams pushed Federalists into these positions, and two days before Jefferson was to take over the Senate had passed all of them. In A History of the Supreme Court, author Bernard Shwartz stated, "They [the Jeffersonians] could scarcely concur in the Federalist attempt to entrench themselves in the life-tenure judiciary by the Midnight Judges Bill" (30).

     Now that we have explored two reasons for the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, we can go on to find some legal and ethical implications of these acts. Legally, there are two implications: further seditious laws and political taint of the law.

     The first legal implication is that of further seditious laws. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 was not the only time a peacetime sedition law has been passed. Two others laws have followed since that time: The Sedition Act of 1918 and the Smith Act of 1940. Both laws were made to restrict the press from criticism of the government in various forms.

     These laws were inspired in some ways by the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 which proves that the acts did have an overlying effect on law in the United States. Both the Sedition Law of 1918 and the Smith Act are still in effect, although not many have been prosecuted under them in years. This is due to the case of Dennis v. United States in which the court deemed that, "there must be evidence" that proves that action was intended by the parties to overthrow the government.

     While there were no prosecutions under these laws in the Vietnam War, historically we cannot say whether or not new sedition laws will be passed in the future. The evidence shows that they have been enacted in the past, which may point to future sedition laws if the government feels it is necessary. Future restraint against the media and press may be passed due to our historical legacy put forward by the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.

     The second legal implication is that of political taint of the law. The original sedition acts were pushed forward by a government in the middle of a vicious fight to keep supremacy and order. Such party politics cannot be practiced in the future to guarantee the rights of the press and media. Stating such words; however, does not make them happen.

     There is no guarantee that can be made to the press and citizens of the United States that this type of political conflict cannot occur again. With the rise of party politics instrumental in the struggle in today's government, we see some similarities. Party politics are preventing some bills and actions to be made on the part of the government. Whether or not this conflict will rise to the point of the Federalists-Jeffersonians remains to be seen, but there is frustration in many public citizens due to these politics.

     Now that I have posed the legal implications of the acts, I can now explain the ethics of the situation. Ethically, the implications are two-fold: protection of the press and protection of individual rights. The first implication is that of protection of the press. To fully enjoy the right of the First Amendment we must ensure that the press gets the protection it deserves. If the press fails to receive such protection it cannot inform us, the public, of the situations that come before us. The right to criticism of our government should be protected, for it aids us in creating a better governing power.

     By placing such seditious libel laws forward we are fretting the rights of our press and media to do what is necessary. As long as it just criticism and not pushing action we must allow the press to do its job. If future laws are placed into effect we may result in pushing our press into a situation it cannot assume, a governmental puppet that bends its pen to that of the majority view.

     The other ethical implication is the protection of individual rights. We cannot in good conscience allow the minority view to slip from public sight. That issue violates the Constitution and the views of the founders that put it forward. If future seditious libel laws get placed on the law books, more people's opinions shall be infringed upon. We may not agree with what is said by the minority, but we must allow them to speak their own minds. If not, we lose the right to all of our own personal opinions on the government and its process.

     In conclusion we have seen what the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 are, the reasoning for its existence, and finally legal and ethical implications of the acts. As citizens of the United States we must learn from our past and make sure that future violations of the Constitution do not happen. It is our rights as free citizens to speak out against what we feel is wrong, and that right must be protected. The United States has had a history of shameful events done by the government; this does not mean that the citizens of this Union have to accept it. Every individual has a right to speak his or her mind, and we must protect that right from all who would steal it.

     Bukowski, Charles. Personal Interview. 14 Apr. 2000.

     Dennis v. U.S., 341 U.S. 494 (1951)

     Elkins, Stanley, and McKitrick, Erik. The Age of Federalism. New York: Oxford Press, 1993.

     Gragg, Larry. "Order vs. Liberty." American History. Oct. 1998: 22-23.

     Hall, Kermit, and Wiecek, William M. (eds.) The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford Press, 1992.

     Maga, Timothy. Personal Interview. 14 Apr. 2000.

     Schwartz, Bernard. A History of the Supreme Court. New York: Oxford Press, 1993.

     Schwartz, Fredrich D. "The Time Machiene: 1798: Two Hundred Years Ago." American Heritage. Nov. 1998: 56.