We live in a time where free speech is valued not only for the message it sends, but the political action is represents. The state of dissent in America is both encouraging and frightening.

This week we saw a group of protesters in Des Moines face a subpoena for their antiwar actions — frightening — but public outcry concerning their right to protest, contest, argue and dissent gave the Southern District attorney enough reason to pause and withdraw the subpoenas.

The rationale issuing the subpoenas is still under wraps, but several political action networks believe it is due to the content of their speech and portions of public policy, such as the USA Patriot Act, which hinder public disagreement to the Bush administration and other public officials.

However, this is not the first time this has happened, but whether we want to continue to see it happen is what many political dissenters are currently protesting for.

The opportunity for people to argue against their government in times of crisis often falls to the wayside in order to ensure public safety and show American unity behind administrative decisions.

This pattern is seen in the passage of the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. These two acts were used by the government under the direction of A. Mitchell Palmer and J. Edgar Hoover to suppress socialist groups and other left-wing organizations.

It imposed a heavy fine to those who intervened with military recruitment and for handing out antiwar information. Under the Espionage Act, more than 900 people were imprisoned. Some of the most noted activists of the day received up to 20-year sentences, including Emma Goldman and Eugene Debs.

The Sedition Act of 1918 made it a crime to publicly criticize the government or the Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld the Sedition Act in the controversial case Schenck v. United States of 1919, giving us the “clear and present danger” statute — whether or not the speech could cause harm to those who hear it.

Our current time in history holds one of great advancements in communication, with technology providing forums for free speech faster than we can find the words to fill them.

Information about every subject is available at our fingertips and is spread all over the world in every language and format. The suppression of free speech, more specifically dissent and disagreement with the government, is inevitable, if not impossible.

The very idea of a republican democracy requires conflict and controversy.

It is essential to maintain dialogue on important issues concerning this government. Constituents have to talk with legislators for them to know what the public wants, while legislators must communicate back to those they represent to fulfill their duty as civil servants.

All of these ideas come back to the idea of criticizing elected officials, not for who they are, but the policies they hope to implement. It is the job of all Americans, all true patriots, to speak their mind to those whom they put in office.

So with unpopular speech, even speech that is viewed as unpatriotic, it is still important to be able to speak freely without the threat of beatings or imprisonment. Not only that, but it is vital as a way to check policies and practices that are supposed to improve and shape the United States.

The protesters in Des Moines were using their first amendment right to free speech to let their elected officials and the public know how they felt about the war in Iraq.

Their position may not have been popular, but it is still necessary in order to create the conflict and controversy needed to support a government built upon the idea of public participation and argument.

Cara Harris is a senior in liberal studies from Richland. She is a

member of the ISU Democrats.