In the
Espionage Act case against Dr. Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, judge Colleen
Kottar-Kotelly has cited two cases from the World War I Red Scare era that she
claims involved the Espionage Act of 1917: Frohwerk v United States and Wimmer v United States .
She was attempting to show that some of Mr Kim's arguments in favor of Free
Speech, and against the Espionage Act, have already been rejected by the court,
90 years ago, and so, today, should also be rejected.
The problem
is that neither Frohwerk's nor Wimmer's cases involved the Espionage Act of
1917. They actually involved the Sedition Act of 1918, which was an amendment to
the Espionage Act of 1917, which was repealed in 1921 because it was
too draconian. The 1918 act actually made it illegal to criticize
the government and it's war effort during World War I. Socialist
Eugene Debs was thrown in prison under this act for criticizing the war in a
speech; he later ran for president from inside his prison cell. Thousands and
thousands of other people were arrested in the same period during the Palmer
Raids, and several hundred, including Emma Goldman, were deported by a brand
new FBI manager named J. Edgar Hoover. [20]
And yet.
Here in 2011, our federal judge, Colleen Kottar-Kotelly, doesn't appear to
realize this. Now, I am not a lawyer. I'm not even what you would call smart.
But it seems like common sense to me that judges should not cite laws that were
repealed. Especially not if the case involves sending someone to federal prison
for 10 years. Especially especially not if it involves the fundamental
principles of civilization, like the freedom of speech and the constitutional
safeguards against tyrrany.