Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Sedition Act of 1918 (Pub. L. 65–150, 40 Stat. 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 ...
The Sedition Act of 1918 (Pub. L. 65–150, 40 Stat. 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.
In 1918 a Baltimore City circuit court upheld the censorship board's decision. [3] The court ruling was based on an Attorney General opinion that films calculated to obstruct or discourage recruitment were detrimental to the public morals. [3] Its powers were weakened after the Supreme Court case Freedman v.
Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the criminal arrests of several defendants under the Sedition Act of 1918, which was an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917.
In reaction to subversive and militant leftist actions in the United States, the United States Congress passed the Espionage Act in 1917, the Sedition Act of 1918, and the Immigration Act of 1918. The Espionage Act made it a crime to interfere with the operation or success of the military, and the Sedition Act forbade Americans to use "disloyal ...
Selective Draft Law Cases: 366 (1918) White none none multiple affirmed Jones v. Perkins: 390 (1918) White none none S.D. Ga. affirmed United States v. Morena: 392 (1918) McKenna none none 3d Cir. certification Waller v. Texas and Pacific Railway Company: 398 (1918) McKenna none none 2d Cir. affirmed Union Trust Company v. Grosman: 412 (1918 ...
DiResta, who is named as a defendant in a civil case brought by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller’s ultraconservative legal group, was also buoyed by the Supreme Court hearing on Monday.
In 1918, Congress passed a law to set minimum wages for women and children in the District of Columbia.As in other cases, the question was one of balancing the police power of Congress to regulate working and living conditions with the right of individuals to conduct their own affairs without legislative interference.