Recently I’ve been doing a lot of thinking and public speaking about the Espionage Act of 1917. I view this law as a lifelong nemesis. My parents were charged, tried and ultimately executed after being indicted for Conspiracy to Commit Espionage under this act. The almost hundred-year-old law has reared its ugly head again since rumors started swirling last fall that the United States is preparing to indict WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange for conspiring to ­violate it.

The 1917 Act has a notorious history. It originally served to squelch opposition to World War I. It criminalized criticism of the war effort, and sent hundreds of dissenters to jail just for voicing their opinions. It transformed dissent into treason by making spoken opposition to the war illegal.

Many who attacked the law noted that the framers of the Constitution had specifically limited what qualified as treason: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort,” (Article III, section 3). In their discussions at the Constitutional Convention the founders agreed that spoken opposition was protected by the First Amendment and could never be considered treason.

It appears obvious that the Espionage Act is unconstitutional because it does exactly what the Constitution prohibits. Not surprisingly, however, as we’ve seen in times of political stress, the Supreme Court upheld its validity in a 5-4 decision not long after its passage. To this day it has been a sword of Damocles, awaiting the right political moment and an authoritarian Supreme Court to spring to life and slash at dissenters.

It is no accident that Julian Assange may face a “conspiracy” charge just as my parents did. All that is required for the prosecution to prove a conspiracy is to present evidence that two or more people got together and took one act in furtherance of an illegal plan. It could be a phone call or a conversation.

But the reach of “conspiracy” is even more insidious. It means that ANYONE with whom my parents could have discussed their actions and politics could have been swept up and had similar charges brought against them if someone testified that those conversations included plans to commit espionage. Thus, the case against my parents was rightly seen by many in their political community of rank and file Communist Party members as a threat to them all.

Viewing the WikiLeaks situation through this lens, it becomes apparent why the government would seek to charge Assange with conspiracy. Not only Assange, but anyone involved in the WikiLeaks community could be swept up in a conspiracy dragnet. Just as in my parents’ case, the prosecutors could seek to bully some involved into ratting out others, in return for more favorable treatment. This divide and conquer approach would turn individuals against each other, sow the seeds of distrust within the broader community, and intimidate others into inaction.

I’ve been speaking extensively about this issue because this kind of attack is a grave threat to every progressive activist and the entire RFC community. I’d welcome the opportunity to spread the word further by making a presentation in your town or on your campus. Anyone who’d like to help organize such a talk should contact Amber at the RFC office: amber@rfc.org or 413-529-0063.

[See “15,000 Unexpected Guests” for a related story.]