5 Times “Obeying the Law” in America was a Terrible Idea

January 6, 2015   |   Carey Wedler

Carey Wedler
January 6, 2015

(ANTIMEDIA) In the midst of outrage against police brutality, cop apologists argue that to avoid police brutality, people should simply be obeying the law. This justification however, reveals itself as unwise at best (and flat out stupid at worst) when applied to previous laws in American history.

1. The Fugitive Slave Act- In times of slavery, the federal government attempted to pacify slave owners by passing the Fugitive Slave Act. The 1850 law mandated that even though slavery was banned in the North, if a Northern citizen (or government employee) happened upon escaped slaves from the South, they had to help return them to their owners. Escaped slaves were also denied a jury trial.

This law was challenged by abolitionists and decent human beings and many slaves escaped to Canada. But if all Americans had simply “followed the law,” further injustice (than was already enforced with the whole “owning” other human beings policy) would have been committed. The law was later repealed.

2. Pornography Prohibition- For as long as humans have existed, they have been interested in sex. In 1873, the federal government decided it could alter human instinct. Under the puritanical Comstock laws, pornography, sex toys, contraception, and information about contraception became illegal to send in the mail, as well as to sell, give away, or own. There is no evidence that the law stopped the human sex drive, even with the threat of up to five years in prison with hard labor and a fine up to $2,000. It eventually ceased to be enforced and was undermined by Roe v. Wade, but for years, engaging in these activities meant violators “deserved” the punishment they received.

3. Alcohol Prohibition- The prohibition of alcohol was an unpopular and unsuccessful constitutional amendment enacted in 1918. It attempted to stop people from drinking by banning liquor. It unwittingly encouraged the formation of gangs, who sold bootleg drinks while underground speakeasies flourished.

This, by the logic of cop defenders, should have been brutally punished-because those heathens were breaking the sanctity of the law! (It was repealed three years later.) No matter how nonsensical or ineffective the law, dogma to and obedience of it pervades the logic of authority worshipers. It applies today with the failed war on drugs, which like alcohol prohibition, has failed to curtail usage and created waste and black markets, as well as an excess of police violence and prison populations.

4. Sedition Acts-Shortly after the creation of the United States, in 1798 President James Madison signed the Sedition Act-intended to ban criticism of the government . It was sparked by the government’s fear of Democratic-Republican rebellion and dissent against the Federalists and accompanied other laws that persecuted immigrants.

Right out of the gate of the American revolution, the federal government was doing exactly what the Constitution was intended to prevent: running away with power. A similar law, also titled The Sedition Act, was passed in 1918 to silence dissent against World War I. It was an extension of the Espionage Act of 1917, which Obama has used to prosecute whistleblowers (the other acts were repealed). The 1918 incarnation made it illegal to

“willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of the Government of the United States.

In both the 18th and 20th centuries, the state was attempting to crush free speech, so anyone who had an opinion (legally guaranteed by the first amendment and philosophically by natural human rights) should have just learned to shut up to avoid a beating and prison. Right?

5. Modern Day America- It can be amusing to examine old laws and point out their absurdity and injustice (this is only a small sampling that doesn’t cover Plessy v. Ferguson, the banning of Native Americans from Boston, or bans on interracial marriage, for example). But the reality is that many unjust laws are on the books today.

The National Defense Authorization Act allows the government to indefinitely detain anyone it deems a terrorist threat or having ties to terrorists. That judgment is entirely up to the state, but if those it deems dangerous try to resist, they will be violating “the law.” Is this fair? At what point do political dissidents and activists become threats to the state when the Pentagon has already stated that protesters are “low level terrorists?”

One of the major problems in American society and politics is the belief that the law is infallible, such as the cigarette law that led to Eric Garner’s murder. In spite of so many examples to the contrary, people still believe that the law is sacrosanct and to violate it is to be an immoral, bad person who deserves whatever the government does to them. This is directly contradicted by the fact that most of the laws listed in this article were eventually repealed.

Rather than glorifying “the law,” Americans should revere the morals government claims underpin them. As long as individuals view government decrees as the gold standard of ethics, however, the government will continue to destroy humanity. Perhaps it’s time to stop making excuses for police officers and politicians and instead, judge them by how they treat their fellow humans.

Enter your email to subscribe to The Anti-Media newsletter:

Powered by FeedBurner

This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TheAntiMedia.org. Tune-in to The Anti-Media radio show Monday-Friday @ 11pm EST, 8pm PST. Image credit: behance.net

Author: Carey Wedler

Carey Wedler joined Anti-Media as an independent journalist in September of 2014. Her topics of interest include the police and warfare states, the Drug War, the relevance of history to current problems and solutions, and positive developments that drive humanity forward. She currently resides in Los Angeles, California, where she was born and raised.

Share This Post On


  1. Right out of the gate of the American revolution, the federal government was doing exactly what the Constitution was intended to prevent: running away with power.

    Post a Reply
  2. Informative and staying on topic. It really is quite something to witness the blatant disregard for civil liberties and rights in the name of "freedom"

    Post a Reply
  3. During prohibition feds couldnt get convictions on moonshiners due to jury nullification. Thats when the jury votes not guilty even though a law was broke because the jury doesnt believe the law is just. It helped end prohibition. This is a legal option for the jururs but most judges wont explain it when giving the jury its orders. At one time judges routinely explained to the jury about jury nullification. This is what america needs to do today when sitting on a jury of a person accused unjustly.

    Post a Reply
  4. It was John Adams, not James Madison that signed into law the Alien and Sedition Act. James Madison was a Democratic-Republican and fought against said law.

    Post a Reply
  5. unfortunately jury nullification also lead to a lot of people guilty of lynching go free….. what we need are just laws, and stick to them…. the laws need to be changed

    Post a Reply
  6. Forget not the detention of the Japanese and theft of their property. Any who attempted to remain free and evade imprisonment were criminals in their time.

    Post a Reply
  7. Drivers license, having to be a "peaceful"protester which includes a very few places allowed legally. Basically every statute and law should be overturned. Man was never meant to govern man.

    Post a Reply
  8. Rob Meier As the link I posted points out, most of the Northern states were slave states until not long before the war, and some even after that.

    In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation freed only the Southern slaves; states like Maryland who agreed not to secede were allowed to keep their slaves.

    Post a Reply
  9. The original Sedition Act was signed by John Adams, not James Madison. Madison was a Democrat-Republicam, Adams a Whig.

    Post a Reply
  10. Just commented the exact same thing lol. At least a few of us know about it lol

    Post a Reply
  11. google "lessor magistrate doctrine" that supports the premise of this article. Knowledge of government abuse is the only way to go to stop it..

    Post a Reply
  12. Friends:

    Governments have specialized in passing bad laws. And insist on applying them, even though they may be absolutely immoral and opposed to the natural freedom people deserve. Governments, frequently, are the enemies of their own people.

    Post a Reply
  13. Even though lynching may be the product of people going crazy, if a jury, later on, in due peace of mind, finds that the lynchers were right in going so far, probably, the ones lynched were deservers of their fate. I must accept, though, that we the people may make mistakes. In fact, we often do and for that reason it sounds logical to pass only just laws which recognize people's right to use their own body and properties as each one desires, as long as no damge is caused to other person's body or property. The non-aggression principle in operation.

    Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *