I understand what happened in the McCarthy trials… okay, hearings. No, of course you can’t be imprisoned just for being a communist (then or now) and I didn’t say that people were arrested on charges of being communists. What did happen, in a total perversion of civil liberty and justice, was that people were later tried on charges tied to their hearings often using fabricated evidence or rent-a-witness.
Had the hearings never happened, these trials and convictions could not have taken place - had the anti-communist hysteria not led American society to value tough action on commie traitors above justice and common sense, the hearings would never have taken place.
But we’ve now moved way off topic so I’ll cease and desist now.
Tell that to the 140 members of the Communist Party who were charged under the Smith Act simply for being members of the Communist Party (which the government alleged advocated the violent overthrow of the government). Despite the lack of any explicit official party publications calling for violent overthrow of the government, and despite the protestations of the individual defendants that they did not support violent overthrow of the government, at least ten defendants received prison terms of five years. And yes, that was for their allegedly seditious party membership, not for contempt of court. (You may be thinking of the defendants’ lawyers, who were imprisoned for contempt.)
First, the blacklist wasn’t imposed by Congress or the US government, but by the studios. So if you think the blacklist was bad, blame the studios, not Congress.
And they got in the trouble they did because they refused to answer questions at a Congressional hearing. That’s against the law, whether the subject of the Congressional hearing is Communism or Cadillacs. Are you saying they were right to refuse to testify to an official government body? If I’m supoenaed, is it ok for me to say, “I’m sorry, Mister District Attorney, but I don’t want to answer your questions today.”?
If by platform you mean their official published political platform, then there’s really no need to debate, because it was shown quite clearly in the infamous Smith Act trials that violent overthrow of the government wasn’t to be found in any CPUSA documents. The convictions were based on inferences made from source materials by Marx, Lenin, and others; IIRC this is one of the reasons the convictions were overturned on appeal years later.
Not as far as I know, but I never claimed they were. It seems that this thread is conflating Congressional hearings, Smith Act trials, and job applications. All of them involve persecution and/or prosecution of Communists, but took place under different circumstances.
FWIW, the “Are you a Communist?” question also survives in US immigration applications. I recently did a Google search for something along the lines of “are you or have you ever been a member of the communist party” and one of the first hits was a list of standard interview questions for US immigration workers.
No Cap. I was specifically answering a portion of Lemur’s statement which is why I snipped his statement to this:
And I gave 2 examples of why that portion of the statement was not accurate. I stand by that and my post.
What I wish I also could have said, to Lemur’s post
IIRC some people who were pulled in and refused to testify or were protected actually had attended a single meeting (or a few meetings) and so were also not technically members of the CPUSA -