The text below was written in 1918: "i listened to all that was said in this court in support and justification of this prosecution, but my mind remains unchanged. i look upon the espionage law as a despotic enactment in flagrant conflict with democratic principles and with the spirit of free institutions… your honor, i have stated in this court that i am opposed to the social system in which we live; that i believe in a fundamental change—but if possible by peaceable and orderly means…" why does eugene debs reject the prosecution's arguments in support of the espionage act?

He believes that the Espionage Act is contradictory to democratic principles and freedom.

The Espionage Act of 1917 established a sentence of up to 20 years in prison for 'disseminating false information about the US armed forces in order to interfere with their operations, cause a riot or impede recruitment into the army.' The law significantly increased responsibility for acts that could be qualified as “supporting the enemy.” From now on, this category included criticism of the government on military strategy, the public proclamation of "defeatist" views, a call for a reduction in military production, opposition to mobilization measures, agitation for evading military service, and much more. Under this law, socialist Eugene Debs was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Debs was a consistent opponent of the war and knew that any talk on this subject was risky. However, on June 16, 1918, Eugene Debs delivered an antiwar speech to a large working audience in a city park in Canton, Ohio.

After the arrest, during the trial, the defendant did not deny the correctness of the verbatim transcript of his speech or the reliability of the testimony. He chose another line of defense, arguing the following: “Everything I said in Cantonese is pure truth, which I will prove as long as my heart beats and my mind works. I categorically deny the disloyalty attributed to me to the flag and the US Constitution, anti-patriotism, anti-Americanism, and other similar charges.”

In the defensive speech delivered by the defendant’s lawyer in court, the idea was provided that the legislation on the basis of which Eugene Debs was prosecuted was unconstitutional. The defender convincingly testified that criticized the government on military strategy, publicly proclaiming “defeatist” views, speaking out against mobilization events, and other similar acts that were accusation of the defendant under the Punishment Law of June 15, 1917 and the Spy Act of May 16, 1918 cannot be considered criminal by virtue of civil rights and freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution: “Congress must not legislate any religion or prohibit its free practice. a statement restricting freedom of speech or the press or the right of people to peacefully assemble and petition the government to stop abuses.”

Explanation:

the answer is can make savage brainliest now

since most of current immigration into the u.s., both legal and illegal, is coming from latin america. it would be very difficult to imagine or rationalize a country my fellow citizens are trying desperately to flee into, would pose a threat to my prosperity or freedom. since the u.s. has a long history of intervention, but no record of permanent occupation, i would not feel oppression is the main objective.  

the largest free trade nation, along with the largest gdp in the world wanting to expand it's economic policy on us, and including us, could only be positive. the u.s. government has no interest in, or way of simply forcing american culture on us. and has no track record of it. other nations that adopted american social culture, or "americanization" did so voluntarily, mainly through the choice of allowing american businesses and u.s. citizens to come into their nations, as free operatives.