View Full Version : Sedition
SEDITION: Webster’s New World Collegiate Dictionary defines SEDITION as:
“The stirring up of Discontent, Resistance or Rebellion against the government in power.”
SYN: Sedition applies to anything regarded by the government as stirring up resistance or rebellion against it and implies that the evidence is not overt or absolute.
My question is a simple one. When does Freedom of Speech cease being a Freedom and become a SEDITIOUS act?
In their blatant attempts to destroy the credibility of the War in Iraq and the President of the United States, are our Democrat friends exercising their right to the Freedom of Speech, or are they actually engaging in stirring up discontent, resistance and rebellion against the government in power, which constitutes SEDITION?
Sedition is not a high powered term used only to describe actions or words designed to stir up discontent, resistance or rebellion against the Federal Government. It can also be applied to such acts against city, county or state governments. We all have a right to the Freedom of Speech, but if and when that Freedom of Speech is used to incite discontent, resistance or rebellion against a duly elected government, it is SEDITION !
paedco
Florida
Sweetbriar
07-24-2004, 16:50
Thanks to the type of government we have, we get to "overthrow" the people in power on a regular basis. At this time, the political rhetoric is intense but well within our political tradition. There is an passion about it that resembles the 60's and early 70's when the current brand of liberalism won the popular mind. Now that same generation is having to fight for continued popular legitimacy in the face of matured boomers and younger generations who are not all interested in parroting boomer traditions. It's either a marginalisation of the movement or a transformation - either process will be VERY lively to watch.
The ability to challenge, debate and discuss is what makes America so great. It's what gives us the ability to emerge stronger from even the worst moments of our history.
In the broadest sense of the word, sedition can be applied to many things. One could say that disagreeing with the current economic policies of our administration is an act of sedition, designed to subvert the dollar and weaken the US market...but if things aren't working...
People have the right to challenge the War in Iraq, the War on Drugs, National healthcare or whatever subject they would like to debate. People can, and do, present their interpretation of the facts and then it's the responsibility of the individual American citizen to make a judgement call on how valid or invalid these points are. Ultimately it is everyone's personal responsibility to make these decisions for themselves and then make their voices heard through people who represent their(and other Americans in concurance) views.
If we, as a country, cannot do this then what is the alternative? Never questioning authority? Never growing as a country or culture?
I've only been to one communist country in my life and that was China(mainland). No one disagrees with the government at all there. They also train children that it's China's divine right to take Taiwan whenever they want to and anyone who gets in the way is simply engaging in activities which directly threaten the PRC's national security.
China as a people and culture are incredibly stagnant. There are no fresh ideas. There is no real individuality. My nephews who live there talk of this constantly. How China's schools are designed to spit out people who tote the party line and continue tradition without question.
I don't want to live in country like that.
j
I think eva05 misread my posting. I never said we could not disagree or debate anything our Government does, I simply said anything we do that fosters rebellion or resistance against the government in power is SEDITION, and I'm sure it is. Our country is based on having the right to open debate, but when that debate turns into rebellion or resistance then it should not be tolerated and I think we are very close to that point today in many ways. We live in a Republic where our elected officials make the laws. If we disagree with the laws they make, we remove the politicians from office through our vote, we do not disobey the laws. We have a vote and when we cast it we hope it goes our way, but if it doesn't we still have an obligation to support the elected.
brewmonkey
07-27-2004, 17:49
The Espionage Act of 1917 was amended by Congress the following year to not only target those who interfered with the draft, but also those individuals who publicly criticized the government — including negative comments about the flag, military or Constitution.
The revised law provided in part:
SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, ...or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct ...the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or ...shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States ...or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully ...urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production ...or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both....
I simply said anything we do that fosters rebellion or resistance against the government in power is SEDITION, and I'm sure it is.
OK, yes, technically that is correct :D
Our country is based on having the right to open debate, but when that debate turns into rebellion or resistance then it should not be tolerated and I think we are very close to that point today in many ways.
But you go into a fine line here. What defines resistance and rebellion? Short of armed insurrection, public protests could certainly be, and have been, construed as rebellion or resistance...That's when the authorities turned the fire hoses and set dogs upon American citizens who happened not to be white and were simply trying to secure the rights guaranteed them by the Constitution.
We have a vote and when we cast it we hope it goes our way, but if it doesn't we still have an obligation to support the elected.
I don't agree with this. If a public official begins acting in a manner that a citizen feels is irresponsible to the republic, then it is their right to protest and voice dissent either through representation or public forum. Sometimes a public forum is disruptive to others. A "die in" or a march that blocks traffic in a major area.
Technically this is sedition, but this is also how democracy works. I'm not going to ape what an elected official says such because they say it .
j
rubberneck
07-28-2004, 09:44
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
You might want to read the Declaration of Independence every now and then. It is quite clear from the text and the historical context that our founding fathers supported the idea of overthrowning tyrranical governments via force. It isn't hard to envision a country in the near future where our individual rights are determined by the government and in that case we will have to revisit the writings of our forefathers.
The Reaper
07-28-2004, 09:56
Unfortunately, due to the gutting of the Second Amendment, the means to do that are denied to you already.
TR
As someone who would investigate a soldier for committing Sedition or Seditious Conspiracy, I will tell you, that we would likely look for some other charge first within the UCMJ, rather than Sedition. Although to some, it's a black and white issue, to others it's in the arena of free speech, thus will make for a difficult case to prosecute.
I personnally don't freak out about the Patriot Act.....I'd be one of the folks "benefitting" from it and it hasn't changed my work one iota. Just speaking for myself and what I've seen.
This is the first time I have ever heard anyone say a "Die-In" or blocking traffic on a major highway was how Democracy works. I always thought our country was based upon one person-one vote, and that vote puts our officials into office, and theymake our laws, which we are bound to follow. If we don't like them, we change them, by changing the officials who made them, not by staging a "Die-In" or by blocking roads or throwing riocks at the police, burning cars, businesses etc. If that is your idea of Freedom and Liberty and even Democracy, then I think you need to look for another country. As for the Declaration of Independence; it had to do with Taxation Without Repreesentation. The King taxed us but would not allow us to viote in their Parliment. don't think you have a match there!
paedco
Florida
This is the first time I have ever heard anyone say a "Die-In" or blocking traffic on a major highway was how Democracy works.
Relentless protest is the only reason Women have the right to vote. Relentless protest and sturggle is the only way the civil rights movement advanced in the face of violent opposition in many states. The United States itself is a nation born from civil protest!!!
If we don't like them, we change them, by changing the officials who made them, not by staging a "Die-In" or by blocking roads or throwing riocks at the police, burning cars, businesses etc.
You've just made a huge leap from civil protest to riot. Let's be clear, Die-ins or marches that block traffic are not riots. They have the potential to become them but then so does every major sporting event.
Then again, the PRC government seemed to share your thinking on this when they killed those kids at Tienman Square. That sit in had the potential to expldoe, so they brought in the army and slaughtered them. Truly a disgrace that we let that fly with no more than a slap on the hand IMHO.
If that is your idea of Freedom and Liberty and even Democracy, then I think you need to look for another country.
So I disagree with you and now I have to look for another country? This doesn't even dignify a response. Grow up.
As for the Declaration of Independence; it had to do with Taxation Without Repreesentation. The King taxed us but would not allow us to viote in their Parliment.
Taxation without representation was part of the issue, but it probably had more to do with taxation period. I'm not as well read on the War of Independence's origins as I should be, but what I've read clearly points to many other factors that led to the war...
The DoI and the Constituion are designed to protect the people from abuse of power by the government. Not the other way around. That's why the burden of proof lies with the accuser in our legal system. They insure freedom, not restrict it.
j
Don't know you, your age or background, but you appear to be a product of the "Power to the People" group. The power does belong to the people but it is to be esercised through the ballot and not in the streets. We can debate and talk all we want, that is our right, but how long has it been since there was a real peaceful demonstration in this country. I remember them when Martin Luther King was around, but after his death, it has been chaos. Womens rights were gained throug peaceful demonstrations and persuassive actions on the part of women, not through physical force. Maybe you can differentiate between riots and "relentless Protest", but to me they have become synonomous. The killings in Tieneman Square were carried out by a Communist regime, which did not allow this freedom, but no government can tolerate total anarchy which is what occurs when throngs hit the streets with the mission to disrupt the daily exercise of other people's rights. that is not protest or free speech, that is Sedition. Where do you think the sports riots came from? they came from folks seeing it on television and reading about it in the papers. The Watts riots and the riots when the police were freed after the King beating. What did they accomplish except to give people the idea that they could get anything they wanted if they were willing to break the law and infringe on others rights. To attempt to draw comparisons between the actions of our founders and those "Rent-A-Protestors" of today is ludicrous and shows a total lack of understanding as to what this country is and what it was founded upon. When you go into the streets to protest something, don't take your weapons along and don't plan on confrontation with the police who are only doing their duty.
rubberneck
07-28-2004, 15:18
Originally posted by paedco
As for the Declaration of Independence; it had to do with Taxation Without Repreesentation. The King taxed us but would not allow us to viote in their Parliment. don't think you have a match there!
paedco
Florida
With all due respect to you sir and your service but you aren't that much of a historian to make a statement like that. It is a gross over simplification sort of like saying the civil war was fought over slavery. The colonists had a whole host of other serious issues that drove them to open rebellion. They were not permitted to speak openly against the crown, they were not free to practice their religion, they forced to quarter the kings troops, they were subject to being arrested and held without any charges being filed, their homes were subject to random searches and the British tried to impose tight controls over every single facet of commerce in the Colonies.
In short they were not only deprived of the right to vote but every single freedom we take for granted today and the Bill of Rights should be viewed as a list of complaints against the King and notice taxation and representation aren't mentioned.
I am not proposing the overthrow of the government but merely pointing out that the rights outlined for us by our forefathers have been gradually taken away from us by either well meaning or evil elected officials and by unelected judges. It isn't hard to see a point when guns are illegal and the two major parties control all political discourse. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law removes the right of non profit groups from running issue ads within 90 days of the election.
I don't kno about you but I can't afford hundred's of thousands of dollars for air time so in effect the groups that I have joined (i.e the NRA) in hopes of being able to be heard have been muzzled and the US Supreme court looked the other way. What's next? I know guns are on the agenda, the Patriot act stripped away some 5th amendment protections. Where are we going to be in 20 years? There will come a day when your average joe is going to say fuck this. If he can change it peacfully he will if he can't he will use violence. Human history as well as American history will back me up on this.