'Sedition' is NOT a 'crime', courtesy of the 1st Admendment. However.....the LIBERAL LEFT would have you believe that it is:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/j...on-against-u-s-gover
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
quote:Originally posted by dogsoldier0513:
'Sedition' is NOT a 'crime', courtesy of the 1st Admendment. However.....the LIBERAL LEFT would have you believe that it is:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/j...on-against-u-s-gover
Agreed!!
Sedition remains a crime in these United States, irrespective of how some right-wing nutcake guardhouse lawyers might try to characterize it. Here is the straight stuff on the subject:
"Sedition is the crime of revolting or inciting revolt against government. However, because of the broad protection of free speech under the First Amendment, prosecutions for sedition are rare. Nevertheless, sedition remains a crime in the United States under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (1948), a federal statute that punishes seditious conspiracy, and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2385 (1948), which outlaws advocating the overthrow of the federal government by force. Generally, a person may be punished for sedition only when he or she makes statements that create a clear and present danger to rights that the government may lawfully protect (Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).
The crime of seditious conspiracy is committed when two or more persons in any state or U.S. territory conspire to levy war against the U.S. government. A person commits the crime of advocating the violent overthrow of the federal government when she willfully advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government by force, publishes material that advocates the overthrow of the government by force, or organizes persons to overthrow the government by force. A person found guilty of seditious conspiracy or advocating the overthrow of the government may be fined and sentenced to up to twenty years in prison. States also maintain laws that punish similar advocacy and conspiracy against the state government."
"Sedition prosecutions are extremely rare, but they do occur. Shortly after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City, the federal government prosecuted Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, a blind Egyptian cleric living in New Jersey, and nine codefendants on charges of seditious conspiracy. Rahman and the other defendants were convicted of violating the seditious conspiracy statute by engaging in an extensive plot to wage a war of terrorism against the United States. With the exception of Rahman, they all were arrested while mixing explosives in a garage in Queens, New York, on June 24, 1993."
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/sedition
"Sedition is the crime of revolting or inciting revolt against government. However, because of the broad protection of free speech under the First Amendment, prosecutions for sedition are rare. Nevertheless, sedition remains a crime in the United States under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (1948), a federal statute that punishes seditious conspiracy, and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2385 (1948), which outlaws advocating the overthrow of the federal government by force. Generally, a person may be punished for sedition only when he or she makes statements that create a clear and present danger to rights that the government may lawfully protect (Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).
The crime of seditious conspiracy is committed when two or more persons in any state or U.S. territory conspire to levy war against the U.S. government. A person commits the crime of advocating the violent overthrow of the federal government when she willfully advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government by force, publishes material that advocates the overthrow of the government by force, or organizes persons to overthrow the government by force. A person found guilty of seditious conspiracy or advocating the overthrow of the government may be fined and sentenced to up to twenty years in prison. States also maintain laws that punish similar advocacy and conspiracy against the state government."
"Sedition prosecutions are extremely rare, but they do occur. Shortly after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City, the federal government prosecuted Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, a blind Egyptian cleric living in New Jersey, and nine codefendants on charges of seditious conspiracy. Rahman and the other defendants were convicted of violating the seditious conspiracy statute by engaging in an extensive plot to wage a war of terrorism against the United States. With the exception of Rahman, they all were arrested while mixing explosives in a garage in Queens, New York, on June 24, 1993."
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/sedition
As long as we're quoting internet sources:
sedition[sidi´shun] Pronunciation Key, in law, acts or words tending to upset the authority of a government. The scope of the offense was broad in early common law, which even permitted prosecution for a remark insulting to the king. Although there have been several statutes in the United States forbidding seditious utterances and writings, the protection guaranteed to speech and press by the First Amendment to the Constitution has made them difficult to enforce except during periods of great national stress. The Sedition Act of 1798 generated so much opposition (see Alien and Sedition Acts) that similar statutes were not enacted until the 20th cent. During World War I the Espionage Act (1917) and the Sedition Act (1918) punished speeches and writings that interfered with the war effort or caused contempt for the government. Vaguely worded and broadly interpreted, they resulted in over 2,000 prosecutions, mostly against radicals and the radical press. The Smith Act of 1940, restricted in scope to the advocacy of violence against the government, was invoked only infrequently during World War II, though it was later used successfully to prosecute Communist party leaders, as in Dennis v. United States (1951). The libel decision of Sullivan v. New York Times (1964), by granting special protection to criticism of public officials, largely eliminated what remained of the crime of sedition in the United States.
http://reference.allrefer.com/...edia/S/sedition.html
I really HATE it when beternU's 'right'....but: As currently opined, sedition 'appears' to be an 'unenforcable' 'crime'....which puts it right up there with any other 'law' that isn't enforced.
sedition[sidi´shun] Pronunciation Key, in law, acts or words tending to upset the authority of a government. The scope of the offense was broad in early common law, which even permitted prosecution for a remark insulting to the king. Although there have been several statutes in the United States forbidding seditious utterances and writings, the protection guaranteed to speech and press by the First Amendment to the Constitution has made them difficult to enforce except during periods of great national stress. The Sedition Act of 1798 generated so much opposition (see Alien and Sedition Acts) that similar statutes were not enacted until the 20th cent. During World War I the Espionage Act (1917) and the Sedition Act (1918) punished speeches and writings that interfered with the war effort or caused contempt for the government. Vaguely worded and broadly interpreted, they resulted in over 2,000 prosecutions, mostly against radicals and the radical press. The Smith Act of 1940, restricted in scope to the advocacy of violence against the government, was invoked only infrequently during World War II, though it was later used successfully to prosecute Communist party leaders, as in Dennis v. United States (1951). The libel decision of Sullivan v. New York Times (1964), by granting special protection to criticism of public officials, largely eliminated what remained of the crime of sedition in the United States.
http://reference.allrefer.com/...edia/S/sedition.html
I really HATE it when beternU's 'right'....but: As currently opined, sedition 'appears' to be an 'unenforcable' 'crime'....which puts it right up there with any other 'law' that isn't enforced.
quote:Originally posted by beternU:
Sedition remains a crime in these United States, irrespective of how some right-wing nutcake guardhouse lawyers might try to characterize it.
The problem is those left wing nutcakes that try to equate sedition with what Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Tea Party people, etc say.
You may not agree with them, but it far from seditious speech...It's a form of intimidation to that these msnbc types are trying to marginalize anybody that doesn't fall into lock step with the federal government.
quote:Originally posted by Renegade Nation:quote:Originally posted by beternU:
Sedition remains a crime in these United States, irrespective of how some right-wing nutcake guardhouse lawyers might try to characterize it.
The problem is those left wing nutcakes that try to equate sedition with what Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Tea Party people, etc say.
You may not agree with them, but it far from seditious speech...It's a form of intimidation to that these msnbc types are trying to marginalize anybody that doesn't fall into lock step with the federal government.
I never contended that the nutterances of Beck, Palin, or other Tea Party types or wild-eyed partisans is seditious. I merely pointed out, correctly, that sedition remains on the books as a crime.
I am all for Sarah Palin being given free reign to say whatever she wants to in public or in private. The more often she speaks, the more likely it is that she will come up with yet another crazy statement that will persuade at least a few of her fans to reconsider their loyalty to that scrambled egg half-term governess!
Seditious conspiracy is a crime under 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951). However, unless Limbaugh is caught mixing nitroglycerin, his programs are not a crime. The left will stoop to any ends to vilify those who do not agree with them. The Obamites are in full Alinsky mode attacking their opponents with any means possible. Trouble is only the Obazombies are still true believers. Anyone note the poll stating nearly 8 in 10 Americans say they don't trust the federal government and have little faith it can solve America's ills? Obamites are in full panic mode. We're in for a bumpy ride!
Betern nuttin,
Its full "rein," like one gives a horse, or a democrat jaccasse, not full reign. Reign refers to what Obama thinks he's doing!
Its full "rein," like one gives a horse, or a democrat jaccasse, not full reign. Reign refers to what Obama thinks he's doing!
quote:Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Betern nuttin,
Its full "rein," like one give a horse, or a democrat jaccasse, not full reign. Reign refers to what Obama thinks he's doing!
Oh--"like one give a horse"? Best to get your words right when you go after someone else's. I do like your formulation ("jaccasse") to beat the censor, though it seems rather elegant for the beast to which you refer.
Satisfied! I used le froggie spelling for cited reason. Sometimes, I use the Brit spelling -- arse.