> The Pentagon Papers were never proved lawful! "Proved" lawful? The burden of proof is not on the speaker. The Espionage Act was just another incarnation of

> The Pentagon Papers were never proved lawful! "Proved" lawful? The burden of proof is not on the speaker. The Espionage Act was just another incarnation of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which Thomas Jefferson wrote so passionately against. The 1917 Espionage Act was in fact extended by the 1918 Sedition act. [It] prohibited many forms of speech, including "any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States...or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 "A major effort to promote national unity accompanied America's involvement (1917-1918) in World War I. As a part of this effort, Congress enacted a number of laws severely restricting 1st Amendment freedoms to curb antiwar dissent." Curb antiwar dissent. How much more Orwellian can you get? http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar37.html http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar37.html "Much of the Act's enforcement was left to the discretion of local United States Attorneys, so enforcement varied widely. For example, Socialist Kate Richards O'Hare gave the same speech in several states, but was convicted and sentenced to a prison term of 5 years for delivering her speech in North Dakota." (Wikipedia) "The Act was ruled constitutional in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 in 1919. Schenck, an anti-war Socialist, had been convicted of violating the Act when he sent anti-draft pamphlets to men eligible for the draft." (Wikipedia) Note this was prior to the Supreme Court's rulings expanding their interpretation of free speech rights. As for the Pentagon Papers: "The Supreme Court struck down the injunctions. However, the decision was fragmented, with nine separate opinions being filed in the case. It was not clear at the time what the effect would be on future prior restraint cases." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint 9 separate opinions is a decent indicator you've got an unconstitutional law. Of course, Jefferson didn't need ANY supreme court justices in order to know a Sedition Act is unconstitutional on its face, and neither should you.