There are more good links in this MeFi thread, posted two years ago.
...was were the 18th Century's equivalent of the Patriot Act, and its the Sedition Act's most famous victim was...
*makes more coffee*
Nations sometimes lose their bearings when confronted by an enemy. In a state of crisis or even panic, they implement measures that are later viewed as regrettable.
Yeah, "Nations" tend to do that; I know because I had one over for tea the other day and we talked about it.
It's really too bad that I'm not in charge of the United States. Somehow, I have this amazing power to see that things like the Patriot Act are not double-plus-good--even before they pass!
I tried to teach the Nation this power, but it didn't seem to have the mental or emotional capacity for it. Or it didn't like tea.
I suspect that I'm the only person living in the United States to have this power.
That was one of the threads that frustrated me before I joined MeFi, since I'd recently read American Aurora and wanted to recommend it. But then majikwah did it for me. Anyway, if you're at all interested in this stuff, seek out the book -- it represents the 1790's through the persona of the editor of the paper, with copious quotes interspersed with brief context-setting descriptions of what was going on at the time (notably the beginning of the party system). I know of no better way to immerse yourself in the life of that period (and disabuse yourself of any idea that George Washington was some kind of untouchable paragon).
should journalists risk aggressively crusading against a presidency if they feel it's threatening the values and well-being of the nation?
How about the more pertinent question: Should-there-be/why-is-there risk when journalists aggressively crusade against a presidency if they feel it's threatening the values and well-being of the nation?
waswere the 18th Century's equivalent of the Patriot Act, anditsthe Sedition Act's most famous victim was... *makes more coffee*