Why does this page/article say access date March 28, 2020 ???

When searching about POTUS and mentioning 1917 to the kids when talking washing of hands and Corona virus?

Well:

1917

June 15

U.S. Congress passes Espionage Act

On this day in 1917, some two months after America’s formal entrance into World War I against Germany, the United States Congress passes the Espionage Act.

Enforced largely by A. Mitchell Palmer, the United States attorney general under President Woodrow Wilson, the

Espionage Act essentially made it a crime for any person to convey information intended to interfere with the U.S. armed forces prosecution of the war effort or to promote the success of the country’s enemies. Anyone found guilty of such acts would be subject to a fine of $10,000 and a prison sentence of 20 years

The Espionage Act was reinforced by the Sedition Act of the following year, which imposed similarly harsh penalties on anyone found guilty of making false statements that interfered with the prosecution of the war; insulting or abusing the U.S. government, the flag, the Constitution or the military; agitating against the production of necessary war materials; or advocating, teaching or defending any of these acts. Both pieces of legislation were aimed at socialists, pacifists and other anti-war activists during World War I and were used to punishing effect in the years immediately following the war, during a period characterized by the fear of communist influence and communist infiltration into American society that became known as the first Red Scare (a second would occur later, during the 1940s and 1950s, associated largely with Senator Joseph McCarthy). Palmer–a former pacifist whose views on civil rights radically changed once he assumed the attorney general’s office during the Red Scare–and his right-hand man, J. Edgar Hoover, liberally employed the Espionage and Sedition Acts to persecute left-wing political figures

One of the most famous activists arrested during this period, labor leader Eugene V. Debs, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for a speech he made in 1918 in Canton, Ohio, criticizing the Espionage Act. Debs appealed the decision, and the case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where the court upheld his conviction. Though Debs’ sentence was commuted in 1921 when the Sedition Act was repealed by Congress, major portions of the Espionage Act remain part of United States law to the present day.

Citation Information

Article Title

U.S. Congress passes Espionage Act

Author

History.com Editors

Website Name

HISTORY

URL

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-congress-passes-espionage-act

Access Date

March 28, 2020

Publisher

A&E Television Networks

Last Updated

July 28, 2019

Original Published Date

November 5, 2009

TAGSSPIES

BY HISTORY.COM EDITORS

President Trump is asked what his message is to America's children who are at home during coronavirus: "They should just sit back and be very proud of our country"

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/489947-trumps-coronavirus-advice-to-kids-you-have-a-duty-to-wash-your-hands

"I would say that they have a duty to sit back, watch, behave, wash their hands, stay in the apartment with mom and dad … and just learn from it," he continued. "Young people have been tremendous. Some of them are very happy not to go to school. They should just sit back and be very proud of our country. Ultimately we are doing it for them."

>>8608232

This movie we are watching is so great

1917

2020

>>8608232

>>8608279

and then 1918

553, enacted May 16, 1918) was an Act of the United States Congress that extended the Espionage Act of 1917 to cover a broader range of offenses, notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds.

Long title: An Act to amend section three, title o…

Enacted by: the 65th United States Congress

Acts repealed: December 13, 1920

1917 then and now 2020

>>8608232

>>8608329

The Sedition Act of 1918

From The United States Statutes at Large, V. 40. (April 1917-March 1919).

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION

The Sedition Act of 1918, enacted during World War I, made it a crime to "willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of the Government of the United States" or to "willfully urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of the production" of the things "necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war." The act, along with other similar federal laws, was used to convict at least 877 people in 1919 and 1920, according to a report by the attorney general. In 1919, the Court heard several important free speech cases – including Debs v. United States and Abrams v. United States – involving the constitutionality of the law. In both cases, the Court upheld the convictions as well as the law.

TRANSCRIPT

Sec. 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements, or say or do anything except by way of bona fide and not disloyal advice to an investor or investors, with intent to obstruct the sale by the United States of bonds or other securities of the United States or the making of loans by or to the United States, and whoever when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause, or incite or attempt to incite, insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct or attempt to obstruct the recruiting or enlistment services of the United States, and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute, or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any language intended to incite, provoke, or encourage resistance to the United States, or to promote the cause of its enemies, or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully by utterance, writing, printing, publication, or language spoken, urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things, product or products, necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war in which the United States may be engaged, with intent by such curtailment to cripple or hinder the United States in the prosecution of war, and whoever shall willfully advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated, and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or the imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both: Provided, That any employee or official of the United States Government who commits any disloyal act or utters any unpatriotic or disloyal language, or who, in an abusive and violent manner criticizes the Army or Navy or the flag of the United States shall be at once dismissed from the service. . . .

Sec. 4. When the United States is at war, the Postmaster General may, upon evidence satisfactory to him that any person or concern is using the mails in violation of any of the provisions of this Act, instruct the postmaster at any post office at which mail is received addressed to such person or concern to return to the postmaster at the office at which they were originally mailed all letters or other matter so addressed, with the words 'Mail to this address undeliverable under Espionage Act' plainly written or stamped upon the outside thereof, and all such letters or other matter so returned to such postmasters shall be by them returned to the senders thereof under such regulations as the Postmaster General may prescribe.

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/capitalism/sources_document1.html

>>8608351

>>8608232

Schenck v. U.S. (1919)

In Schenck v. United States (1919), the Supreme Court invented the famous "clear and present danger" test to determine when a state could constitutionally limit an individual's free speech rights under the First Amendment. In reviewing the conviction of a man charged with distributing provocative flyers to draftees of World War I, the Court asserted that, in certain contexts, words can create a "clear and present danger" that Congress may constitutionally prohibit. While the ruling has since been overturned, Schenck is still significant for creating the context-based balancing tests used in reviewing freedom of speech challenges.

The case involved a prominent socialist, Charles Schenck, who attempted to distribute thousands of flyers to American servicemen recently drafted to fight in World War I. Schenck's flyers asserted that the draft amounted to "involuntary servitude" proscribed by the Constitution's Thirteenth Amendment (outlawing slavery) and that the war itself was motivated by capitalist greed, and urged draftees to petition for repeal of the draft. Schenck was charged by the U.S. government with violating the recently enacted Espionage Act. The government alleged that Schenck violated the act by conspiring "to cause insubordination … in the military and naval forces of the United States." Schenck responded that the Espionage Act violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which forbids Congress from making any law abridging the freedom of speech. He was found guilty on all charges. The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed Schenck's conviction on appeal.

The Supreme Court, in a pioneering opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, upheld Schenck's conviction and ruled that the Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment. The Court maintained that Schenck had fully intended to undermine the draft because his flyers were designed to have precisely that effect. The Court then argued that "the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." While in peacetime such flyers could be construed as harmless speech, in times of war they could be construed as acts of national insubordination. The Court famously analogized to a man who cries "Fire!" in a crowded theater. In a quiet park or home, such a cry would be protected by the First Amendment, but "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

In sum, free speech rights afforded by the First Amendment, while generous, are not limitless, and context determines the limits. "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Against this test, the Court upheld the Espionage Act and affirmed Schenck's conviction, finding that his speech had created a clear and present danger of insubordination in wartime.

The decision, in addition to sending Charles Schenck to jail for six months, resulted in a pragmatic "balancing test" allowing the Supreme Court to assess free speech challenges against the state's interests on a case-by-case basis. (Justice Holmes, the test's creator, however, would attempt to refine the standard less than a year later, when he famously reversed himself and dissented in a similar free speech case, Abrams v. United States.) However, the "clear and present danger" test would only last for 50 years. In 1969, the Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio replaced it with the "imminent lawless action" test, one that protects a broader range of speech. This test states that the government may only limit speech that incites unlawful action sooner than the police can arrive to prevent that action. As of 2006, the "imminent lawless action" test is still used.

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/personality/landmark_abrams.html

>>8608232

Abrams v. United States (1919)

In the waning months of World War I, in August 1918, a group of Russian immigrants was arrested in New York City and charged with violating the Sedition Act of 1918, which made it a crime to "willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of the Government of the United States" or to "willfully urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of the production" of the things "necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war." Their offense: distributing pamphlets that criticized the U.S. military's recent deployment of troops to Russia and that, in one case, advocated a general strike in factories producing military goods. A few months later, the group – which included a young anarchist named Jacob Abrams – was tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison terms of 15 to 20 years. Their convictions were hardly unique. Ironically, during the "war to make the world safe for democracy" the federal government enacted some of the most severe restrictions on civil liberties at home in the country's history – in 1919 and 1920, the attorney general reported 877 convictions under the 1918 Sedition Act and other similar federal laws.

In March 1919, while Abrams and his compatriots were appealing their case, the Supreme Court heard two other First Amendment cases dealing with the convictions of antiwar socialists – Schenck v. United States and Debs v. United States. In both cases the Court unanimously upheld the defendants' convictions under the 1917 Espionage Act and the 1918 Sedition Act, respectively – and in both cases Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes penned the Court's decisions. In Schenk, Holmes devised a legal test for governmental restrictions on free speech. The deciding factor, he wrote, is whether the speech in question is "of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that [it] will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."

In the Abrams decision, issued in November 1919, the Court voted 7-2 to uphold the convictions of Abrams and the other defendants. Writing for the majority, Justice John H. Clarke closely mirrored Holmes's reasoning in the first two cases, holding that "the language of these circulars was obviously intended to provoke and encourage resistance to the United States in the war" – and that the defendants' actions had therefore passed the "clear and present danger" threshold.

Over the summer of 1919, however, Holmes had undergone a serious change of heart regarding the permissibility of governmental restrictions on the First Amendment's guarantee of the right to free speech. Long held in special esteem by many of the nation's most prominent legal scholars, Holmes had been surprised by the negative reaction many had had to his opinions in Schenk and Debs. In the June 1919 issue of the HARVARD LAW REVIEW, Professor Zechariah Chaffee had published an article entitled "Freedom of Speech in War Time," which advocated a more libertarian reading of the First Amendment and appeared to be written as a personal entreaty to Holmes. Holmes not only read the article but also met with Chaffee personally, and spent time over the summer engaging with several other libertarian scholars and jurists, among them Learned Hand and Ernst Freund. By the time the Abrams case reached the Court in the fall, Holmes was prepared to rethink his earlier position.

continued next post:

>>8608416

continued:

Joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, Holmes issued a dissent that remains famous as one of the Court's most eloquent defenses of free speech. Although he maintained that his opinions in the Schenk and Debs cases had been correct, Holmes modified his standard, stating that the government could constitutionally restrict and punish "speech that produces or is intended to produce clear and imminent danger that it will bring about forthwith … substantive evils." The difference in phrasing was more than semantic. By substituting "imminent" for present and adding the qualifier "forthwith," Holmes was signaling a much stricter standard of judicial scrutiny: only when a direct and immediate connection between an act of speech and a subsequent crime existed could the speech itself be criminalized. Holmes dismissed the possibility that "the surreptitious publishing of a silly leaflet by an unknown man … would present any immediate danger," and argued for the social benefits of unrestrained free speech. "The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out," he wrote. "That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution."

Although the Court never adopted Holmes's more rigorous standard, his dissent in Abrams remains widely regarded as a defining moment in the movement towards a modern construction of the right to free expression. The Court would continue to use various reformulations of Holmes's earlier "clear and present danger" test until 1969, when it established a direct incitement standard in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

>>8608232

>>8608232

The Espionage Act of 1917

Digital History ID 3904

Date:1917

Annotation: America declarated war with Germany in April 1917. Two months later, the U.S. Congress passed the Espionage Act, which defined espionage during wartime.

The Act was amended in May 1918.

In his war message to Congress, President Wilson had warned that the war would require a redefinition of national loyalty. There were "millions of men and women of German birth and native sympathy who live amongst us," he said. "If there should be disloyalty, it will be dealt with a firm hand of repression."

In June 1917, Congress passed the Espionage Act. The piece of legislation gave postal officials the authority to ban newspapers and magazines from the mails and threatened individuals convicted of obstructing the draft with $10,000 fines and 20 years in jail.

Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1918, which made it a federal offense to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the Constitution, the government, the American uniform, or the flag. The government prosecuted over 2,100 people under these acts.

Document:

The Espionage Act of June 15, 1917

Espionage

Section 1

That: (a) whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defence with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information, concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defence, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, coaling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, or other place connected with the national defence, owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control or the United States, or of any of its officers or agents, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired. or stored, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place within the meaning of section six of this title; or

(b) whoever for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts, or induces or aids another to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing or note of anything connected with the national defence; or

(c) whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts or induces or aids another to receive or obtain from any other person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defence, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts or induces or aids another to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this title; or

(d) whoever, lawfully or unlawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defence, wilfully communicates or transmits or attempts to communicate or transmit the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, or information, relating to the national defence, through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be list, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.

>>8608232

>>8608473

continued:

Section 2

Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury or the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicated, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to, or aids, or induces another to, communicate, deliver or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly and document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defence, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than twenty years: Provided, That whoever shall violate the provisions of subsection:

(a) of this section in time of war shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for not more than thirty years; and

(b) whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, shall collect, record, publish or communicate, or attempt to elicit any information with respect to the movement, numbers, description, condition, or disposition of any of the armed forces, ships, aircraft, or war materials of the United States, or with respect to the plans or conduct, or supposed plans or conduct of any naval of military operations, or with respect to any works or measures undertaken for or connected with, or intended for the fortification of any place, or any other information relating to the public defence, which might be useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for not more than thirty years.

Section 3

Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall wilfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies and whoever when the United States is at war, shall wilfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall wilfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or of the United States, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both.

>>8608473

>>8608477

>>8608232

continued:

Section 4

If two or more persons conspire to violate the provisions of section two or three of this title, and one or more of such persons does any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as in said sections provided in the case of the doing of the act the accomplishment of which is the object of such conspiracy. Except as above provided conspiracies to commit offences under this title shall be punished as provided by section thirty-seven of the Act to codify, revise, and amend the penal laws of the United States approved March fourth, nineteen hundred and nine.

Section 5

Whoever harbours or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offence under this title shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.

Section 6

The President in time of war or in case of national emergency may by proclamation designate any place other than those set forth in subsection: (a) of section one hereof in which anything for the use of the Army or Navy is being prepared or constructed or stored as a prohibited place for the purpose of this title: Provided, That he shall determine that information with respect thereto would be prejudicial to the national defence.

Section 7

Nothing contained in this title shall be deemed to limit the jurisdiction of the general courts-martial, military commissions, or naval courts-martial under sections thirteen hundred and forty-two, thirteen hundred and forty-three, and sixteen hundred and twenty-four of the Revised Statutes as amended.

Section 8

The provisions of this title shall extend to all Territories, possessions, and places subject to the jurisdiction of the United States whether or not contiguous thereto, and offences under this title, when committed upon the high seas or elsewhere within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and outside the territorial limits thereof shall be punishable hereunder.

Section 9

The Act entitles "An Act to prevent the disclosure of national defence secrets," approved March third, nineteen hundred and eleven, is hereby repealed.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/espionageact.htm

>>8608473

>>8608477

>>8608232

war

trump keeps saying that word

>>8608283

any way to find the time stamp for the edits?

then see what activity talks/tweets happened similar time to get them all on same page?

remove Banner for the Invisible Virus nod

or some other nefarious thing?

Hanx banner is grey

like people go when dead??

colors mean somehting in their comms

Hanx banner is grey

like people go when dead??

colors mean somehting in their comms>>8608547

if white hats taking their banners holly fuQ

wait to see what gets put back in???

Watch and monitor all

and check the instgrams and tiktok

>>8608283

Hanx banner is grey

like people go when dead??

colors mean something in their comms

>>8608547

if white hats taking their banners holy fuQ

wait to see what gets put back in???

Watch and monitor all

and check the instgrams and tiktok

>>8608556

>>8608547

>>8608283

Patton Oswalt is still normal pic on banner?

>>8608283

It may have to do with those stupid liveaid type

Corona raise funds concerts tomorrow?

Solidarity of some sort?

12-12 Sunday aton of ceblebs will have their "show" from their home computers/devices

>>8608283

Kim K getting done for will be epic as she tried to make herself a dogooder with prison reform and becoming 9quitting) being a layer.

closse ties with riccardo tisci pedo and marina abromovich spirit cooker

Kim K going down and perhaps kanye is going to be wild shit

remember the KinM K paris robbery FF before HRC dumps to happen stopped all the news

>>8608283

colors and Fremasonry

http://www.masonicdictionary.com/colors.html

>>8608283

>>8608641

The colors symbolically significant in Masonry are purple, red, white, black, green, yellow, violet and blue. Each color has for its purpose the teaching to the Mason of a valuable moral lesson or the calling of his attention to some historical fact of interest Masonically, certain of the colors serving both purposes at one and the same time.

http://www.masonicdictionary.com/colors.html

>>8608283

>>8608646

Are they signalling what degree they end with?

Colors are very important and are about who they are in Masonry

make a color coded list see who is what

So the Mason, adhering once more, as he so often does, to the conceptions of the Egyptians, chooses for his symbol of the immortality of the soul which he knows to be divine and true an object

The Royal Arch Mason may attempt to appropriate to himself the red, the Perfect Master may feel himself the exclusive proprietor of the green and the black, and so on, but blue is acknowledged by every Mason to belong to us all and no Mason, whatever his degree, questions the Master Mason's ownership of blue. Second, blue is the supreme color because it has, coupled with its universality, a place in symbolism which, both as regards importance of lessons taught and as regards legitimacy as a symbol, is second to that of no Masonic color.

The Royal Arch Mason may attempt to appropriate to himself the red, the Perfect Master may feel himself the exclusive proprietor of the green and the black, and so on, but blue is acknowledged by every Mason to belong to us all and no Mason, whatever his degree, questions the Master Mason's ownership of blue. Second, blue is the supreme color because it has, coupled with its universality, a place in symbolism which, both as regards importance of lessons taught and as regards legitimacy as a symbol, is second to that of no Masonic color.

>>8608584

>>8608283

that would be the shit!

>>8608624

>>8608648

>>8608283

I think they thought they would get a deal

Kanye and Km, pedo Ricardo Tisci tight friendships

same with Marina Abromovich

Kris Jenner Kim's mom is besties for decades with

Nicky Hilton-Rothschild mom Kathy Hilton and there is that Paris Hilton pic on the Q board re: Ray Chandler. Paris and Kim both are besties.

Getting good right now watching all of this all of us oldfags seeing dots connect

soon we will see all the loaf for the crumbs

>>8608301

>>8608283

Hieroglyphs of the spirits of the dead were characterized by white

http://www.masonicdictionary.com/colors.html

looks grey for hanks and the other guys

but is that how you have atwitter white banner perhaps

http://www.masonicdictionary.com/colors.html

really gross knowing what we now know about meat and shoes and human products

lady gaga meat dress and shoes

and her ties to Marina Abromovich

and Anthony Bourdain

this is what they showed us

"art"

anons should get cb radios and ham radios ASAPfor any internet shutoff

start asap so all can still connect with daily shit as it happens

any chance the girl that POTUS said was rescued and back with her parents is Natalie Hollaway

>>8608793

>>8608815