The movie is said to portray both sides as squelching speech and views from those who thought that war was not the answer. The film’s screenwriter says the film is a “defense of dissent”.
And I understand that free speech suffered on both sides from the beginning to the war until the end. But I was puzzled by his apparent claim that had free discussion been allowed prior to the war then the war wouldn't have happened. I wasn't aware that it had been suppressed in any way. You had a lot of people not listening to what the other side had to say, but they were still free to say it.