Sedition.

[cali]

Historically, in this country Sedition Acts and laws have been used largely against the left.

Why on earth anyone on DU would enthusiastically support charges of Sedition against Fox or wingnut congress critters is a mystery to me. It can so easily be wielded against us.

There should be a high bar for the charge of sedition. It shouldn't just be that the speech is offensive or that Fox News "brainwashes" people.

[Blue Meany]

1. Obviously, free speech is essential. But I don't think that new organizations should be allowed to

knowingly lie. This may not be treason or sedition, but ought not to be legal. I also think we should bring back the Fairness Doctrine, so that everyone is at least exposed to arguments from the other side.

Neither of these things, BTW, would keep Fox from biased coverage. The could still devoted 10 times as much coverage to Mitt Romney's speeches as Obamas. The could still choose to cover only stories that make Democrats look bad, etc.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

3. Especially by news organizations owned by people not born here. nt

[JaneyVee]

32. True, a foreigner has waged war on our Govt. The Founders would have revolted.

Not just waged a war on the President, thats free speech, but the very notion of our Govt and its ideals. This undermines the very fabric of our Democracy.

[orpupilofnature57]

2. Kkkarl Rove, for outing and endangering a Field agent ?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

4. I'm always surprised at the number of posts

That call for restricting speech with which we don't agree. The whole point of the First Amendment is to protect unpopular speech.

[cali]

5. There's a distubing amount of such palaver.

[byeya]

7. The First Amendment protects truth. We have libel and slander laws for lies and we have sedition

for purposeful harming of the people's government.

[cali]

8. gigantic fail.

The first amendment doesn't support "truth". It supports all kinds of speech- including lies.

Could you people be anymore "1984"?

[KittyWampus]

17. No, the First Amendment does not protect Slander. You may have a point but you failed

to make any valid point in the OP or this thread or the original thread.

[cali]

25. I didn't say it did, dear.

and you know that. I think my point was quite clear.

[Jackpine Radical]

27. Slander & libel are civil torts, not illegal acts.

The remedy is to sue the slanderer/libeller for damages, not to prosecute or jail them.

[dairydog91]

12. First Amendment protects "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press"

That includes quite a lot of libeling, slandering, and "harming the people's government."

[SickOfTheOnePct]

14. Fail

The First Amendment protects true speech, false speech, hate speech, etc.

[Codeine]

18. I've just reviewed the text of the 1st Amendment. It doesn't say jack shit about truth.

And for a person on the Left to even start muttering about "Sedition" makes my blood run cold. Get a goddamned history book out.

[cthulu2016]

15. BUT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO FREE SPEECH!!11!111

Child pornography is illegal, so why shouldn't criticizing the government be illegal?


(Just anticipating the usual argument.)

[KittyWampus]

19. Slander is also not protected, nor are death threats. Still haven't found a cogent argument in this

thread.

Just posturing.

[dairydog91]

24. They are defined extremely narrowly by court precedent.

You can allude to a desire to kill the President and still be making Constitutionally-protected speech: "I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.&quot Watts. v. United States)

Cross-burning is at least partially protected. Flag burning is protected. Holding insulting protests at soldier's funerals is protected. If anything, the trend over the last few decades has been the increasing hostility of the Supreme Court towards regulating "violent" speech.

As for libel/slander, that is also at least somewhat protected. If you want to prove it against a public figure, you have to prove that before or when the publisher made the statement, they knew it was false. Also, keep in mind that publishing a piece stating that a famous preacher had lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse was also considered to be so obviously false that it couldn't be libel, and you've got a hard case to win if you want to go for slander/libel.

[Bucky]

6. For questioning the commitment of fellow DUers to free speech, I charge YOU with sedition!

You will be shot in the morning and tried the next day!!

[cali]

9. heh.

the fervor of my fellow DUers on this topic is not to be doubted.

[slackmaster]

10. Those who misquote George Santayana are doomed to paraphrase him

Because I'm not sure exactly what he wrote, I'll say that those who cannot remember history are doomed to repeat it.

[cthulu2016]

11. I disagree with your framing of the question

I get where you are coming from as a practical way to get people on DU to understand the issue it makes sense to point out that such laws would be used against the left.

That is not, however, the problem with such laws.

They are categorically wrong.

When political speech is limited to what the law accepts then then all political speech exists merely at the sufferance of the government.

In practice, law and government cannot be separated. The process of law is a government process.

[Codeine]

20. Well said, sir. nt

[cali]

26. wish you'd written the OP. I struggled with it.

That is an excellent summation.

[Jackpine Radical]

29. To take it a step further,

who will be the final arbiter of truth if not the government?

How would you like Bishop Willard to be the judge of what is true?

[treestar]

13. Is there even a law against it at this point?

It appears there is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition

This sounds though not like sedition, when they talk of the Libya theme - they aren't saying overthrow the government itself. But it could be libel - even public figures can make out a case if it is severe enough.

It's probably no worse than the claim Bush and Cheney planned 911, but then that was never mainstream.

[treestar]

21. some recent examples from wikipedia article:

On October 1, 1995, Omar Abdel-Rahman and nine others were convicted of seditious conspiracy.[26]

Laura Berg, a nurse at a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in New Mexico was investigated for sedition in September 2005[27] after writing a letter[28][29] to the editor of a local newspaper, accusing several national leaders of criminal negligence. Though their action was later deemed unwarranted by the director of Veteran Affairs, local human resources personnel took it upon themselves to request an FBI investigation. Ms. Berg was represented by the ACLU.[30] Charges were dropped in 2006.[31]

On March 28, 2010, nine members of the militia Hutaree were arrested and charged with crimes including seditious conspiracy.[32]
[edit]

[KittyWampus]

16. So the Left should never pursue justice since the Right might utilize same channels? That's exactly

what you are saying.

Further, in the thread you refer to (why you had to start your own thread on same subject is beyond me) the definition of Sedition was posted.

Also, you use hyperbole in saying people are merely claiming FOX News is offensive or brainwashing. A stronger case was made.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

22. No, a stronger case was not made

People don't like what Fox News is saying, so they want it silenced.

If anyone believes that Fox News is committing seditious acts, then they should push to have them prosecuted. Otherwise, it's nothnig more than an attempt to silence unpopular speech, which runs contrary to the First Amendment.

[Posteritatis]

34. I love how "so what you're saying is ___" never really depicts what was actually said.

I almost never see someone use that particular construction without filling in the blank with a gigantic straw man.

[grantcart]

23. I think people are just frustrated and aren't actually suggesting that the FBI start locking up

Hannity, even when they put "I'm serious" in the headline.

[cali]

28. it's pretty clear they are serious.

[grantcart]

35. nah they are seriously frustrated. If it came down to the FBI arresting someone they would back off

People have to vent but I agree that it is, even at that level, unhelpful.

[Jackpine Radical]

30. As long as I'm hanging out in this thread,

I just wanted to say Thanks for posting it & defending your position.

[cali]

31. you're welcome. I didn't say it very well

cthulu said it much better. I'm hoping grantcart is right and people don't seriously believe the stuff they're spouting about prosecuting Fox and wingnuts for sedition.

[Posteritatis]

33. People generally like abuses of authority if they don't wind up on the wrong end of them

They also seem to think when they're calling for them that it'll only work in their favor - after all, once Our Side's done locking people up or exiling them or whatever it is we're demanding this week, there'll be nobody left to retaliate when Their Side's in charge again!

The number of people who treat rights as mere privileges is a whole other rant, of course, and the complete lack of understanding both crowds tend to have about the way the US polity operates is a third.