Post #5: Why are Antiwar Sentiments Silenced?

As our lesson on the Progressive Era showed, silencing antiwar voices is nothing new, especially in the U.S. As explained in MTSU's First Amendment Encyclopedia, limits of free speech during wartime date back to the Revolutionary War and the passage of the Sedition Act of 1789, which made it illegal to publish "false, scandalous, or malicious writing" against the government. More recently, the U.S. Patriot Act limited First Amendment freedoms in the name of combatting terrorism. Such limitations on free speech are not limited to America, either. Similar examples of wartime censorship can be found throughout the world and throughout history. Given this long history, it should come as no surprise that strong antiwar voices are often viewed as a taboo by the average person. The same can be said of any viewpoint that society has deemed "extreme". As any sociology student can tell you, humans want to maintain a sense of social order, which is why punishment befalls those whose ideas go too far against the grain. 

On the other hand, war and conflict are detrimental to the citizens of conflict zones. According to Amrita Rathi of Columbia University, "War adversely affects combatants and non-combatants alike..." She explains that death, injury, sexual violence, and illness are among the most physically threatening effects of war. Meanwhile, PTSD, depression, and anxiety are some of the emotional dangers of violence. Therefore, it is also not shocking that so many people hold antiwar sentiments. Moreover, it would not be entirely fair to say that mainstream media rejects these ideas all together. After all, a number of the articles featured on antiwar.com come from mainstream news sources, like MSNBC, U.S. News & World Report, Yahoo News, and the Associated Press. While these sources may not be calling out officials to the degree that the blogs we have looked at do, they also do not remain completely silent on controversial issues. As we have seen with other movements in the past, such as the recent Black Lives Matter protests, mainstream media coverage tends to ramp up when an event occurs that generates a lot of buzz. At the end of the day, news organizations are businesses, so they generally follow the stories that will be the most profitable. 

Ultimately, when it comes to the government's reaction to extreme and/or opposing views, I have mixed feelings. Obviously, it is not okay for governments to change or bend the rules when it is convenient for them, as they have done with free speech protections in times of war. Yet, on a human, sociological level, I understand why governments, more specifically the individuals that make up those governments, choose to behave the way they do towards dissent. Dissent is perceived as a threat to societal stability, so, regardless of the reality of the situation, we (society and governments) do what we think will have the best cost/benefit ratio for maintaining peace among dissenters without destabilizing the social order we know and desire.