Sedition, Redefined
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
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 century. 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.
Sedition via Wikipedia:
Sedition refers to a legal designation of non-overt conduct that is deemed by a legal authority as being acts of treason, and hence deserving of legal punishment. The term is deprecated in most countries, though equivalent language may still be in use in totalitarian and fascist jurisdictions.
Critical speech, political organization, and mere association between individuals may be considered as "sedition." And though such behaviors may be common in a free society, in societies where sedition laws exist the acts and behaviors which qualify are highly subjective, and typically left to the whims of state agents. Legal definitions of sedition often include subversion of a constitution, or incitement to rebellion or insurrection toward the lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws.
Because "sedition" is typically considered the subvert act, the overt acts that may be prosecutable under "sedition" laws vary from one legal code to another. Where those legal codes have a traceable history, there is also a record of the change of definition for what constituted sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological definition of sedition as well, within study of persecution.
The legal difference between sedition and treason consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object of the violation to the public peace. Sedition does not consist of "levying war" against a government nor of "adhering to [its] enemies, giving them aid and comfort" (Article Three, U.S. Constitution). Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful, non-violent protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).
Sedition via U.S. Code:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2384
§ 2384. Seditious conspiracy
Release date: 2005-08-03
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Title 18 > Part I > Chapter 115 > § 2385.
§ 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
Release date: 2005-08-03
NEW YORK Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) has asked Veterans Affairs Secretary James Nicholson for a thorough inquiry of his agency's investigation into whether a V.A. nurse's letter to the editor criticizing the Bush administration amounted to "sedition."
Merely opposing government policies and expressing a desire to change course "does not provide reason to believe that a person is involved in illegal subversive activity," he said. Bingaman said such investigations raise "a very real possibility of chilling legitimate political speech."
Laura Berg, a clinical nurse specialist for 15 years, wrote a letter in September to a weekly Albuquerque newspaper criticizing how the administration handled Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq [War]. She urged people to "act forcefully" by bringing criminal charges against top administration officials, including the president, to remove them from power because they played games of "vicious deceit." She added: "This country needs to get out of Iraq now and return to our original vision and priorities of caring for land and people and resources rather than killing for oil....Otherwise, many more of us will be facing living hell in these times."
...In a press release, Simonson also said: "Is this government so jealous of its power, so fearful of dissent, that it needs to threaten people who openly oppose its policies with charges of 'sedition'?"
The answer to Mr. Simonson's question is a resounding, "Yes!" Look at the actions of our government. Erecting "Free Speech Zones", making it illegal to enter certain areas that may or may not be occupied by political leaders, arresting individuals with no more cause then a snap determination that they may be a protestor, expelling individuals from public functions because they may not agree with you, ordering wiretaps on Americans in clear violation of the law... the list goes on and on and on.
What are we to make of this recent reworking of the law and the above example of it's enforcement? Bloggers beware! The government will be coming for you next. It is now illegal to speak out against government or to question the government on any subject matter. They now have the authority, under color of law, to suppress your voices. Don't believe me? Just ask Laura Berg how free she feels. Ask her if the First Amendment protected her from government's reach. I suspect we all know what her answer will be.
One last thing. You may have missed it from above, so I'll highlight it again for you. From Wikipedia's above quote: "The term [sedition] is deprecated in most countries, though equivalent language may still be in use in totalitarian and fascist jurisdictions." Could we then deduce that by the very existence of Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115--Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities, we essentially live in a "totalitarian and fascist jurisdiction"? My answer, "You bet you ass we do!"
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home