• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sedition

Devil505

Banned
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
3,512
Reaction score
315
Location
Masschusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Based on what's been going on recently, I thought that this topic may be worthy of discussion/review by forum members.

While the First Amendment is meant to guarantee our precious rights of free speech & peaceable assembly, not all speech is legal.
What I have seen (from some) recently appears very close to violating federal laws against sedition so I have copied some nfo
from here: [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition]Sedition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]





Sedition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is about the law term. For other uses see Sedition (disambiguation)

Sedition is a term of law which refers to overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.

Typically, sedition is considered a subversive act, and the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where the history of these legal codes has been traced, there is also a record of the change in the definition of the elements constituting sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological definition of sedition as well, within the study of state persecution.

The 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 enemies aid, and giving enemies comfort. Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).

Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state, giving aid to enemies, or levying war against one's state. Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one's country by aiding and abetting another state. Sedition laws somewhat equate to terrorism and public order laws.
 
Last edited:
So cindy sheehan, code pink, and war protestors are guilty of sedition to you?


run and hide from this as you always do now.... :2wave:
 
I can't believe that anybody would consider opposition to the healthcare agenda of Obama and Co, to be sedition. That's just ridiculous.
 
You didn't copy the federal laws on the point.

US CODE: Title 18,CHAPTER 115—TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
Who at these town hall meetings is advocating overthrow of the government?
 
Just when you think he couldn't top his "republican plants/wait for my magic evidence" fail, he does one better. :lol:
 
This kind of idiotic attacks on protestors are as dumb and disgusting now as they were 6 years ago.

Remember "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."

Now should we switch that to "somehow you're trying to overthrow the government"?

Sometimes protests get unruly, and when they disturb the peace then that's an issue of the police...not mob justice...and most certainly not sedition.

Being loud and talking over someone is not in and of itself illegal nor a sign that someone is trying to "overthrow" the government.

Unless people are calling for the violent, non-election focused OVERTHROW of this government then no, its not sedition and to even think so is purely ignorant of facts.

Its sickening and sad that both sides are so quick to try and find any loophole to attempt to manipulate to silence free speech when they get into power
 
celticlord said:
You didn't copy the federal laws on the point.

US CODE: Title 18,CHAPTER 115—TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
Who at these town hall meetings is advocating overthrow of the government?
Click to expand...

Thanks for citing the actual law.
I posted this topic merely to alert some, who may think free speech has no limits, that there are legal limits & we should all speak freely but reasonably, within the law.

I have accused no one in particular of violating the law against sedition, but post this topic as (hopefully) useful info to inform some that free speech does have legal limits & to be aware the one's words alone may have legal consequences.
 
Last edited:
I can recall an incident with an MMA fighter, Jeff Monson, who is one of those "anarcho-communist" types. He crossed the line and vandalized government property, by spray painting some of the juvenile stuff his beliefs entail onto the building.

But I don't believe he was ever charged with sedition.

People have attacked military recruiters and recruiting stations, yet nobody has been charged with sedition(to my knowledge).

Some people show up, and express their disdain with the Democrats healthcare agenda, and we now have people stretching the meaning of sedition to make it fit the situation?

Luckily, it only looks like one or two people here think its appropriate.
 
I recommend reading especially this link US CODE: Title 18,2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
which was posted by Celtilord. (all of them are worth reading to know the legal "boundaries" of this free speech playing field)

Please don't jump in an accuse me of accusing anyone in particular of violating these sections. I post this as a general "Speed Limit" sign to all of us.
 
Last edited:
Hey everyone, this isn't talking about anyone in specific so really there's no reason to discuss it because the likelihood of it mattering is next to nil.

That said real quick...

Who exactly were you talking about here:

"What I have seen (from some) recently appears very close"

Since you say you're not talking about anything specific
 
Last edited:




:lol: zyph... In police work, they call this a:


 


I stated my obvious OPINION that: "What I have seen (from some) recently appears very close".....to sedition.
& then went on to post links defining SEDITION.

I guess I am now being asked to PROVE my opinion?????

Opinions require no proof. Everyone has a right to express theirs.
My opinion is that strawberry ice cream tastes best to me.
Do I need to prove that?
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
I stated my obvious OPINION that: "What I have seen (from some) recently appears very close".....to sedition.
& then went on to post links defining SEDITION.

I guess I am now be asked to PROVE my opinion?????
Click to expand...
Well, it would at least make for an actual thread if you would explain how it is "sedition". Otherwise.....there's nothing to discuss, as Zyph said.
 
celticlord said:
Well, it would at least make for an actual thread if you would explain how it is "sedition". Otherwise.....there's nothing to discuss, as Zyph said.
Click to expand...

Well.......This is an ACTUAL thread (whatever that means) & the intent of this thread was to help define the limits of the playing field & help forum members avoid possible legal problems IF they were to wander to close to the edge of legal free speech.

(I have stated my topic intent clearly & this is as far as I will allow myself to be drawn into the verbal weeds)
 

You seem to be under a false impression about Opinions.

This is correct. Opinions do not HAVE to be proven. I can say "Its my opinion that the evidence CLEARLY shows that Barack Obama is not a U.S. Citizen but is actually from Kenya".

HOWEVER....

Without providing FACTS or some sort of substance to back up my opinion its worthless. No one should bother to listen to it. Its worth no more than if I squatted, layed a steamer, and then took a picture of it and said "This is my opinion".

I'll give you a hint, very very few people on this forum are going to give a crap about what another person on this forums opinion is without some kind of substance. The few posters that likely are outside of that general standard are those that are:

1. The top quality posters on the boards whose posts of opinion are generally backed up a bit in reality, who will stick around to justify their opinion, who make an extreme attempt at being open minded and intentionally honest instead of bias, and are generally polite (Donsoutherland is an example of this).

2. Posters whose opinions have been shown to be unique or entertaining to read, put across in generally an open minded even if slanted measure, that shows consistancy and insight. (TheBareKnucklePundit is an example of this)

Outside of that, if you just give your opinion and have absolutely no ability to back it up, people aren't going to care and there's no reason they SHOULD care.

If your OPINION is these things APPEAR to be Seditious and have absolutely nothing further to back up your opinion other than what you've stated then your opinion is worthless and useless and this thread isn't even worth discussing on because it is obvious you're just wanting to make baseless outlandish comments. If you actually have facts or information to back up your opinion then be our guest and post them instead of attempting to say you're not talking about any group in particular.

In your topic YOU made allusions to specific instances you feel are approaching sedition. Its no ones fault you posted this and no one is out of line for asking you to expand on that as you made it part of the topic in your OP.
 
Last edited:
No, a generalized talk of Sedition is not needed nor even useful. Its not common and when it is its clear and easy to see. Nothing we've seen recently in the news nears sedition nor what we've seen in years in any kind of mainstream or large way, so talk about it is rather useless and would only come about when someone has obvious and transparent alterior political motives which is obvious since you're implying a specific group of actions in your OP despite them not being anywhere close to sedition which is evident in your refusal to back up your opinion.
 

That is your opinion (that providing facts are necessay to add substance to an opinion. It is not everyone's & certainly not mine.
People obviously can agree with or discount anyone else opinion for any reason. Opinions do not require facts. Some on his forum seem to agree with my opinions & others do not.
If I state something I claim to be fact, I will need to back up that claim with proof. Not so with opinion.
I think opinion is the life blood of any forum like this. It's what get topics started & keeps them going. It usually brings out facts, but doesn't have to.


Example: I hate humid weather....That is obviously a statement of opinion & should not be required to be proven somehow. Others can agree, disagree or pay no attention to MY OPINION about humid weather.



Getting back to the substance of my opinion on sedition, I think the tapes of some of the Town Hall meetings is leading others here to share my opinion, but even if I'm wrong, putting the law in plain view can only be a service to help members avoid possible legal problems by violating laws they may not have been aware of.

Some posts here lead me to believe the poster feels that anything they say is legal & protected by the First Amendment, which is simply untrue may lead some people into legal difficulties if they (unknowingly) go to far. (ignorance of the law is no defense in court)
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
Example: I hate humid weather....That is obviously a statement of opinion & should not be required to be proven somehow. Others can agree, disagree or pay no attention to MY OPINION about humid weather.
Click to expand...
Who's for Door #3? :mrgreen:
 
Devil505 said:
T
Getting back to the substance of my opinion on sedition, I think the tapes of some of the Town Hall meetings is leading others here to share my opinion, but even if I'm wrong,
Click to expand...

Save for the most hyper partisan of the left, you are.

putting the law in plain view can only be a service to help members avoid possible legal problems by violating laws they may not have been aware of.
Click to expand...

Putting the law in plain view is rather worthless and a completely transparent act by you because the vast vast vast majority have no even got close to Sedition in these protests thus far.


If some posts here lead you to believe this then your post leads me to believe you have significant issues with reading comprehension because I know very few people on this forum that believe everything and anything they say is legal and protected under the first amendment, as shown by numerous of those you're likely insinuating in the above statement having actually stated that not all forms of speech are protected.
 

In your OP, you said you started this thread "based on what's going on."

What's "going on" which warrants bringing up sedition? This isn't something brought up lightly, any time there's a protest. You must have something in mind.

What is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…