A Censorship Case That Might Surprise You

This week I read an article in Reason magazine about a U.S. film maker whose movie The Spirit of '76 landed him in prison for ten years. Damon Root's article zeroes in on a rather scary encounter between the State and free expression. I was well acquainted with the excesses of government during Woodrow Wilson's two terms in the White House. 2000 people were arrested under the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 for speaking out against the war effort. U.S. federal government aggressively prosecuted people for anti-war speech, criticism of the government or military, or making statements seen as obstructing the war effort or recruitment. Reliable historical accounts have stated that of those arrested, around 1,050–1,055 were convicted. Many received prison sentences (some up to 10–20 years), though others faced fines or shorter terms.

What's bizarre is that filmmaker Robert Goldstein's offense wasn't for making antiwar statements. Writes Root, "Goldstein's 'crime' was producing a silent film about the American Revolution titled The Spirit of '76. Among other things, the film reportedly contained scenes that depicted British troops bayoneting women and children. Because Britain was then an ally of America's in the First World War, the U.S. government quickly suppressed the film and prosecuted Goldstein for interfering with the war effort." 

Under the Espionage Act he was sentenced to 10 years in prison.   

* * *

 

This took place in a country where "Freedom of Speech" is the first amendment to the Constitution. 

What does this have to do with us today? Well, we live in a time when spokespersons are at war over what is acceptable as regards free speech. Who decides what is good and what is bad? Since funding propaganda is included in our nation's budget, how do we know what is true and what is spin? [OK, we already know that spinning is ever ongoing from all sides, Left and Right, media and governments.] Who decides who the good guys and bad guys are in this battle for control of the narrative?

We live in a mediated world. Before entering World War One, very few Americans knew much about Germany, its history and its aims. (The 8 million Germans who had immigrated here, of course,  knew their history.) But as the drums of war began to sound, there were plenty of messages being piped into our brains through the news media, striving to form a national will to take up arms against Kaiser Bill and those German brutes.

But who were these brutes, really? Stories of German aggression were circulated as if Otto Bismarck and later Kaiser Wilhelm were out to take over the world. In point of fact, history didn’t bear this out at all. It was the British Empire that had had a 300 year hold on the world, famously declaring with pride, “The sun never sets on the British Empire.”

The spin was in, and America began creating the rationale it needed for to enter the war. Thus was born the Committee on Public Information (CPI), whose aim was to influence U.S. public opinion to support the war effort. Wilson’s Executive Order 2594 set in motion an ever broadening series of events.

This anti-German sentiment had serious consequences. Hatred was aroused toward German-American citizens and “being anti-German became a way of showing patriotism for the American war effort.” Even though there were more immigrants from Germany than from any other country, many libraries pulled books off the shelves that might be considered pro-German. Laws were passed specifically hostile to German-Americans.

The climate became so paranoid and hateful that by 1918, South Dakota prohibited the use of German over the telephone and in public assemblies of three or more persons. “By the early 1920s, 34 states had passed English-only requirements in their schools. These laws were argued before the Supreme Court in the case of Meyer v. Nebraska.”

Years ago I remember reading about German Americans having their dachshunds murdered by hostile neighbors. These actions were generated by the propaganda machinery of our government, hand-in-glove with the powerful newspaper media network. This anti-German sentiment came directly from the Wilson White House. (He’d formerly been president of Princeton, an idealist and educated fool, which he’d soon have ample opportunity to prove before the end of his second term.)

Getting back to the main point, the Wilson White House had an agenda and used its power  to promote the war effort. Of this I was aware, and the practice of using government power and tax dollars for whatever ends those in power believe is justified continues to this day. I was unaware that a film maker would be sentenced to ten years in prison for a scene portraying an actual historical moment. How many other such imprisonments have taken place in this manner?  

Related Links

Damon Root, 4-16-2026. Remembering the infuriating case of United States v. “The Spirit of ’76.” 

Helen Keller's Forgotten History and Her Letter to Eugene V. Debs

A Look Back: Sedition, Free Speech and the President

Non-USA Aberdeens

On May 27, 2001, Robert Lookup assembled the following list of non-USA cities named Aberdeen.

Aberdeen, Saskatchewan (Just NE of Saskatoon)

Aberdeen, Jamaica

Aberdeen, Andaman Island (Bay of Bengal)

Aberdeen, Sierra Leone

Aberdeen, Australia

Aberdeen, South Africa

Aberdeen, Hong Kong

Aberdeen, Scotland

Aberdeen, Tasmania

Aberdeen, Guyana (South America)

Aberdeen, Nova Scotia

Aberdeen, Ontario

Aberdeen, British Columbia

Aberdeen, British Columbia

Aberdeen, Antigua

* * * 

Observations

First, the geographic spread is remarkable. All these Aberdeens give evidence to the global reach of the former British Empire. We see Aberdeens in Europe, North America, the Caribbean, South America, Africa, Asia and Australia/Oceania. That immediately suggests that the list is really a little map of the British Empire and Scottish migration. The original Aberdeen supplied a place name that traveled with settlers, administrators, merchants and colonial institutions.

Aberdeen, Hong Kong has an especially interesting history. The district was named for George Hamilton-Gordon, 4th Earl of Aberdeen, who served as British prime minister and foreign secretary—not simply after the Scottish city. So not every Aberdeen necessarily traces its name through the same route.

The Andaman Islands entry is intriguing. “Aberdeen” refers to the Aberdeen area/settlement around Port Blair, and the Battle of Aberdeen was fought there in 1859 between British colonial forces and indigenous Andamanese people. Every place name has its "origin story."

It's interesting that Robert Lookup identified two Aberdeens in British Columbia. One is a residential hillside area in Kamloops. The other is a suburban community within Aberdeen, Abbotsford.

When I Googled >>Robert Lookup ennyman<< the following information was generated by Google's AI Overview:

Background: He experienced homelessness and lived as a "street person" in Duluth, where he was befriended by local writer and artist Ed Newman* (the author behind the Ennyman's Territory blog) and his wife for the final decade of his life. 

Nicknames & Passions: He was affectionately nicknamed "Train Man" due to his deep obsession with trains. He meticulously watched every single movie available in the Duluth Public Library system and rated each one entirely on the accuracy and entertainment value of its train scenes. 

The Index Cards: Robert recorded his massive volumes of research on 4x6 index cards using a tight, crimped handwriting style. Newman frequently compares the visual look of his handwriting to Bob Dylan’s handwritten lyrics for the song Desolation Row. 

Obsession with Birthdays: He possessed a savant-like memory for dates and famously remembered almost everyone he interacted with by their birthday. 

 

Robert Wesley Lookup, 61, of Superior, died Friday, Dec. 12, 2003 in St. Luke's Hospital, here in Duluth.

* All credit goes to Susie for introducing us.

More Miscellaneous Notes I Found While Cleaning My Office

22 August 2026
Notes found on various scraps of paper.

Philosophical Anthropology

Political Philosophy

Contemporary Modern Philosophy

Philosophy of Science

Descartes / Kant

Some people want (need) clear cut answers, not ambiguity

Some are anti-fact / anti-science

Historical Responsibility

I worry about the way we set up issues

The fact that we don't agree -- how do we keep the conversation going?

Inflated Data

Willard Munger Wetlands Act destroyed usable real estate

Where do Duluth's unemployment numbers come from?

"We were so proud of you when you could draw when you were two. Grandpa Newman would send reams of paper so we could draw."

I have visions but lack the skill and motivation to follow through.

Blog Post: Learning to See

Atticus: To Kill a Mockingbird
Rhett: Gone with the Wind
Stella: Streetcar Named Desire
Kurtz: Heart of Darkness
Ishmael: Moby Dick
Pyle: The Quiet American
Harry Lime: The Third Man
Ann Sullivan: The Miracle Worker
Robert Jordan: For Whom the Bell Tolls
Winston: 1984
Billy Pilgrim: Slaughterhouse Five
Henry Wilcox: Howard's End
Sonny: The Godfather
Nurse Ratched: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

Scribbled Signatures

Review the impacts of Executive Orders

What really matters?

Begin at the bwginning.

Our Greatest Threat Today According to Os Guinness

"The supreme global menace of our day is unprincipled, unbounded power."
--Os Guinness

This weekend I listened to a talk titled 84-yr-old Philosopher Os Guinness Has 3 Warnings for the West. In his talk Guinness reflects on the decline of Western civilization, drawing parallels to Ernest Hemingway's description of bankruptcy as happening "gradually and then suddenly."

The liquidation of a company's assets doesn't come about overnight. Like many disastrous endings, whether used cars or broken marriages, things can limp along far longer than imagined, until suddenly the anticipated collapse occurs, to no one's surprise. It was not an overnight disaster, just as The Beatles were not an overnight success.

At the same time, Guinness acknowledges--even demands--that we fight for a needed cultural renewal rooted in foundational values of human dignity, freedom, and faith. He highlights the significance of the Jewish contributions to Western civilization, the dangers of unprincipled power, and the importance of confession and cultural renewal driven by faith. 

His speech warns of the potential negative consequences of authoritarianism and AI, advocating for a globally inclusive, human-friendly future with a focus on returning to foundational truths and values.

Guinness began by talking about his personal experiences as a youth during the Chinese Revolution and compares them to the Russian Revolution, two events that shaped the 20th century. (His parents were missionaries in China.) He used this as a springboard into a discussion on the role of the English-speaking world in defending freedom and a critique of the current state of Western society, including rising anti-Semitism.

Essentially he spoke as an advocate for a "global, human-friendly future" that upholds the sanctity of life, individual dignity, and justice for all, urging a shift from national discussions to a focus on global humanity while emphasizing the importance of foundational ideas for sustaining human rights.

Happy endings are never guaranteed, he said while using the Titanic's fate as a metaphor for complacency about the endurance of civilization. He followed this with the Russian fable of the scorpion and the frog, illustrating the intrinsic nature of destructive ideologies.

From here he jumped to a Persian parable. "Someone is down on his knees searching desperately for something, and a policeman comes by and says, what are you looking for? My keys, he says. So the policeman gets down on his knees and searches furiously, and after a few minutes, they can't find anything. And the policeman said to him, are you sure you lost it here? And the man said, no, it was over there. And the policeman said, why were you looking here? Well, there's more light here." The point here being that a lot of the human search and discussion goes to the easy, the convenient, the fashionable, and the comfortable. When we're discussion the renewal of a civilization, it ain't gonna be easy. 

For Guinness, faith is the foundation of culture and civilization, with Western civilization deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian values. To ignore or dismiss contributions from Jewish culture to Western ideas is both evil and ignorant. The role of confession and acknowledging mistakes is a strength rather than a weakness in cultural renewal.

Guinness also states that cultural change is a byproduct of living certain values collectively, rather than an isolated goal. All people should be encouraged to contribute to society's improvement.

The potential for restoration within Western culture must emphasize a return to foundational truths.

His address concluded with a call to action against escalating authoritarianism and technology misuse, advocating for a future that prioritizes human dignity, equality, and justice, efforts that aim to create a "human-friendly future" amidst current global challenges.

* * * 

I found his talk thought provoking. In listening to Guinness I hear echoes of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's famous "Men Have Forgotten God speech. The origin of this sentiment was something he heard from older Russian peasants when he was a child, recalling that they blamed the tragedies of their country on the fact that "men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."

Feel free to comment below.

A Brief History of Lobotomy: The “Miracle Cure”

The history of lobotomy in the United States spans roughly three decades of widespread use, from its introduction in the mid-1930s to its sharp decline in the mid-1950s. It is a vivid example of the unreliability of experts.

Portuguese neurologist António Egas Moniz developed the prefrontal leucotomy in 1935, severing connections in the frontal lobes to treat severe mental illness. In 1936, American neurologist Walter Freeman and neurosurgeon James Watts adapted the technique, renaming it the prefrontal lobotomy, and performed the first such operation in the U.S. on September 14 at George Washington University Hospital on Alice Hood Hammatt, a woman with agitated depression. Their Freeman-Watts standard procedure involved drilling holes in the skull and using a leucotome to disrupt neural pathways between the frontal lobes and other brain regions. 

 

Lobotomy gained traction amid overcrowded asylums, limited effective treatments for conditions like schizophrenia, depression, and anxiety, and postwar pressures including care for veterans. Freeman aggressively promoted it through media as a potential “miracle” cure. 

 

Early results were mixed: some patients became calmer and more manageable, allowing discharge, but many suffered personality changes, apathy, cognitive impairment, seizures, or death. In 1945–1946, Freeman refined a faster, less invasive version—the transorbital (“ice-pick”) lobotomy—inspired by Italian work. An instrument was inserted through the eye socket to sever frontal lobe connections, often after electroconvulsive shocks for sedation; no traditional operating room was required. 

 

The first U.S. transorbital procedure occurred on January 17, 1946, on Sallie Ellen Ionesco. Watts opposed the office-based approach and eventually parted ways with Freeman. Freeman then traveled widely, performing or supervising thousands of procedures (estimates around 3,400–3,500 of his own, including some on children) and training others. Roughly 40,000 to over 50,000 lobotomies occurred in the U.S., with the peak (“lobotomy boom”) in the late 1940s to early 1950s—around 5,000 annually at the height, many in state hospitals. 

 

A high-profile case was Rosemary Kennedy’s 1941 lobotomy, which left her severely incapacitated. Joe Kennedy (JFK's dad) submitted his daughter to the procedure without even telling his wife that he was doing this. The procedure was carried out by Freeman and Watts at the George Washington University Hospital, which provided a high degree of respectability to this action. The operation, however, was a catastrophic failure. Rosemary’s mental capacity was reduced to roughly that of a two-year-old. She initially could not walk or speak intelligibly and became incontinent. She was shuttled off to an institution in Wisconsin, out of sight, out of mind. Joseph and Rose Kennedy never visited her for 20 years. Believe it or not, she lived till 2005 and died at age 86. This story was, of course, kept hush-hush for many years.

Ethical concerns regarding lobotomy grew over consent, indiscriminate use, and irreversible harm. The American Medical Association had already expressed skepticism by the early 1940s.

 

The procedure’s popularity collapsed after the 1954 introduction of chlorpromazine (Thorazine) and other antipsychotics and antidepressants, which offered safer pharmacological alternatives. Lobotomies dwindled; Freeman performed his last in 1967 on Helen Mortensen (a repeat patient), who died of hemorrhage. By then the era had effectively ended. Lobotomy is no longer practiced in the U.S. and stands as a cautionary chapter in psychiatric history, illustrating both desperate therapeutic innovation and the risks of uncritical adoption of invasive treatments.

This above story came to mind when I read Michael Shellenberger's Substack yesterday calling out some facts about "gender-affirming care" that are seldom talked about.

For years, he wrote, many of America's most influential medical organizations, along with much of the news media, Democratic leaders, hospitals, progressive advocacy groups, and celebrities, have argued that "gender-affirming care" can save lives. This care can include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries that alter a child's body. The guiding belief has been that if a child sincerely believes he or she is the opposite sex, medical treatment should help bring the body into alignment with that inner identity.

However, a newly released report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) paints a much grimmer picture, writes Shellenberg. According to the report, adults who underwent gender-related surgeries had 12-fold higher rates of suicide attempts than those who did not. It also cites a long-term Swedish study that followed patients for up to 30 years and found that those who had undergone gender reassignment surgery died by suicide at a rate 19 times greater than the general population. If these findings hold up under continued scrutiny, they raise serious questions about whether these medical interventions have delivered the long-term benefits that many advocates have claimed.

In the future, will messing with children's hormones and pushing puberty blockers be looked at the same was as lobotomy is viewed today? Let's hope so.

The Strange Death of Europe: Douglas Murray Sounds an Alarm

The other night I heard someone reference the writings of Douglas Murray, calling him courageous for being a truth teller. Not being familiar with Mr. Murray I decided to check Amazon to see what kinds of books he's written. Several of these intrigued me, so I next turned to our local library's website to see if they carried his work. Happily I found two volumes which I proceeded to check out. 

The first that I paged through was titled The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam. Murray's book was published in the UK in May 2017, and in June 2017 in the US, and I can understand why it would be controversial. 

The Strange Death of Europe is the internationally bestselling account of a continent and a culture caught in the act of suicide, now updated with new material taking in developments since it was first published to huge acclaim. These include rapid changes in the dynamics of global politics, world leadership and terror attacks across Europe.

...Murray's "tremendous and shattering" book (The Times) addresses the disappointing failures of multiculturalism, Angela Merkel's U-turn on migration, the lack of repatriation and the Western fixation on guilt, uncovering the malaise at the very heart of the European culture. His conclusion is bleak, but the predictions not irrevocable. As Murray argues, this may be our last chance to change the outcome, before it's too late.

Murray contends that European civilization as it has historically existed will not survive. He explores two factors in explaining this: The first is the combination of mass migration of new peoples into Europe together with its low birth rates; the second is what Murray describes as 'the fact that… at the same time Europe lost faith in its beliefs, traditions, and legitimacy.'

The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam is a thought-provoking and controversial exploration of Europe's current socio-political landscape. 

Mass immigration, shifting cultural identities, and the challenges posed by the rise of Islam within European societies is a complex stew of issues.. Murray raises compelling arguments and important questions about the future of European civilization and the impact of these profound demographic and cultural shifts. While some may find his perspectives divisive or contentious, his book offers valuable insights, and in looking at Europe today it's quite apparent that his analysis and concerns were on target.

What makes it worse today is the current assault on free speech which, in England, has resulted in people being arrested simply for speaking up about their concerns.

Murray is not one to pull punches. Here's a quote from his 2024 article “Who put the toddlers in charge?” published in The Spectator (UK edition) on 14 March 2024 (in the issue dated 16 March 2024):

Regrettably, we must conclude that our culture is being dictated by two-year-olds. I do not literally mean children of two years of age, some of whom are among my favourite conversationalists. I mean people with the mental age of a two-year-old. That is, people who have never been told ‘no’ and have gone through their adult lives behaving as such.

The rot began with the green lunatics. I’m all for saving the environment. Most people are. But the moment vandalism became an acceptable way to persuade people of your cause was where things went wrong.

* * * 

This is a big topic which needs more space to properly unwind, but there are lessons here and issues that need a proper vetting. These are times to be vigilant and aware. As the Proverb states, "The complacency of fools destroys them."

Photo: Gemini-generated version of original painting by the author.

To Flock or Not to Flock: The Question of Surveillance Cameras

One of this week's big stories has been the controversy over Flock cameras. I first saw it mentioned in an August 6 Facebook post that went like this:

Honest question: Why are people against Automated License Plate Readers (flock cameras)? I am not going to comment, I want to get people’s point of view! Thanks!

There were more than 50 comments. 

Evidently it's a pretty big deal because The Atlantic has a feature story titled In Defense of Flock and the NYTimes published a major story this week as well, titled Flock Cameras Can Track Every Car in America. Police Love Them. Citizens Don’t. 

My first thoughts, as is often the case, were contradictory. On the positive side of the ledger is the idea that stolen cars will be more rapidly apprehended. Criminal behavior will be, to some degree, curtailed. 

Simultaneously I thought of the ubiquitous presence of Big Brother in Orwell's 1984.  

Charles Fain Lehman's piece in The Atlantic carries the subtitle, Police cameras can help make the criminal-justice system both fairer and less punitive—if we let them. The subtitle on the Times story telegraphs its angle as well: In Texas, there’s one thing liberals and conservatives agree on: They don’t want cameras trained on their cars.

One of my concerns with de-Flocking (eliminating cameras) is that our police are already handicapped in so many ways that it has become a challenge to catch legitimate criminals. If my car is stolen, I like the idea that police can find it before some nutcase crashes it into a tree, like someone did to my neighbor's car 30 years ago, or hustles it off to a chop shop. The Times story notes that Boulder, Colorado has seen a decline in car thefts by more than a third since these cameras were installed.

The Times story also highlights some abuses that have already occurred. 

One difference between Flock and the cameras that began appearing in Duluth 15 or 20 years ago is that this new system is interconnected to a massive database. Another is that it's AI-powered. (Purportedly 70% of the country is connected. There are Flock cameras in every state except Alaska.)

We've seen censorship on social media instigated by our government. There are other ways a surveillance culture can take a dark turn. 

Here is a comment from X about Flock cameras:

@Wall Street Apes
Flock advertises these cameras as simple license plate readers. But their own patents tell a different story. They're AI-powered surveillance machines that capture every passing vehicle and person and transmit that data to a private corporate cloud, making it queryable by a multitude of state and federal agencies.

A quick review of other comments on X seem to support dismantling the cameras, as if vandalism were heroic. 

Jason Koebler on BlueSky posted: New: Regretful cities are literally covering their Flock cameras with black trash bags because they cannot figure out how to immediately exit their surveillance contracts or get the cameras taken down:

Someone else posted that all eight Flock cameras in Winona have been stolen.

Here's a story from KSTP in Minneapolis:

Flock cameras across Minnesota are being vandalized in response to data privacy concerns

SO, What do you think?  Leave a comment.

In Defense of Flock

Police cameras can help make the criminal-justice system both fairer and less punitive—if we let them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/08/flock-safety-cameras-ai-surevillance/688219/?utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20260810&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&lctg=656b49758e7913743006ce3d&utm_term=The%20Atlantic%20Daily

Flock Cameras Can Track Every Car in America. Police Love Them. Citizens Don’t. 

In Texas, there’s one thing liberals and conservatives agree on: They don’t want cameras trained on their cars.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/10/us/flock-cameras-can-track-every-car-in-america-police-love-them-citizens-dont.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20260811&instance_id=180194&nl=from-the-times&regi_id=123953394&segment_id=224550&user_id=c5de7e4b28d36066d31878b87617b3c2