In the context of World War I in the United States, which statement is true about the Sedition Act?

Introduction / Context:
During World War I, the United States government passed several laws that limited civil liberties in the name of national security. One of these was the Sedition Act, which amended earlier legislation and aimed to control criticism of the war effort and the government. Many history questions test whether students understand that this act targeted speech and expression, particularly anti war views.

Given Data / Assumptions:
- The question asks which statement is true about the Sedition Act in the wartime context.
- Options mention pro war propaganda, speaking against the war, targeting white Russians and travelling abroad.
- We assume basic knowledge that sedition laws deal with speech and criticism of authority.
- The Sedition Act relates to the United States during World War I, not to conditions in Russia.

Concept / Approach:
The Sedition Act of 1918 expanded the earlier Espionage Act and made it a crime to use disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language about the US government, the Constitution, the armed forces or the flag. In practice, this meant that people who spoke out against the war, criticised the draft or challenged government policies could be prosecuted and jailed. Therefore, we look for the option that describes this suppression of dissent and the danger of speaking against the war.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Recall that sedition usually refers to speech or actions that encourage resistance to government authority.Step 2: Connect this idea to World War I, during which the US government wanted strong support for the war effort.Step 3: Examine the options and look for the one that says it became dangerous to speak out against the war.Step 4: Eliminate the option about pro war propaganda, since the government actually encouraged pro war messages rather than banning them.Step 5: Eliminate the option about targeting white Russians, because the law addressed Americans critical of their own government, not political groups abroad.Step 6: Eliminate the option about travelling abroad, as the Sedition Act focused on speech, not foreign travel.

Verification / Alternative check:
To verify, consider famous cases such as Eugene V. Debs, who was imprisoned under wartime laws for making a speech that criticised the draft. This example shows that criticising the government and the war could result in severe punishment. Pro war speeches, by contrast, were welcomed. There is no major historical record of the Sedition Act focusing on travel abroad or on white Russians, which confirms that the correct description is the one about discouraging and punishing anti war speech.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A is wrong because it claimed to ban pro war propaganda, whereas the government itself produced and promoted such propaganda to increase support for the war. Option C is incorrect because the act did not primarily target Russian citizens abroad; it was aimed at people within the United States who criticised American policies. Option D is also wrong because the law did not specifically make travel abroad dangerous; the main concern was what people said and wrote about the war and the government.

Common Pitfalls:
Students sometimes confuse the Sedition Act with general restrictions on travel or with policies in other countries. Another pitfall is assuming that any law passed during wartime must regulate all forms of behaviour, instead of focusing on key areas like speech. To avoid these errors, it helps to remember that sedition is about speech against authority and that the World War I Sedition Act made such speech risky and punishable.

Final Answer:
The true statement is that the Sedition Act made it dangerous to speak out against the war or criticise the government.