Free Speech vs. Sedition

[cassanova]

Can you really have seditious speech laws when you live in a system of government that provides you the right to free speech? If so, then where do you draw the line without it violating the speakers rights?

[cheezewiz]

The concept of free speech does not mean speech without limit. For example, yelling "FIRE" in a theater is not free speech. Sedition isn't either.

[Big_Daddy]

...Considering it's a government that was founded upon the principal of 'if you don't like the government, rebel and take it down with brutal force', it's ironic.

[Selta]

The government didn't grant us the right of free speech. The Constitution protects us from the government trying to take away our human right to free speech.
IMO.

[cassanova]

Originally Posted by cheezewiz

The concept of free speech does not mean speech without limit. For example, yelling "FIRE" in a theater is not free speech. Sedition isn't either.

I agree with what you're saying here and I completely understand and am okay with that.

To give further insight to my original post, some friends and I saw a clip of what were clearly radical religious extremists, preaching hatred & rebellion towards the United States. Stating things like "we disassociate ourselves with this flag and all that its government stands for," and imploring people to join their cause in taking down the "evil empire of the United States government."

My friends and I were discussing this earlier and one of them made the comment that they were exercising their right to free speech. I myself think it's seditious and they should've been arrested.

His comment is what lead to the second part of my question. Where do you draw the line without it violating peoples rights?

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by cassanova

I agree with what you're saying here and I completely understand and am okay with that.

To give further insight to my original post, some friends and I saw a clip of what were clearly radical religious extremists, preaching hatred & rebellion towards the United States. Stating things like "we disassociate ourselves with this flag and all that its government stands for," and imploring people to join their cause in taking down the "evil empire of the United States government."

My friends and I were discussing this earlier and one of them made the comment that they were exercising their right to free speech. I myself think it's seditious and they should've been arrested.

His comment is what lead to the second part of my question. Where do you draw the line without it violating peoples rights?

The courts are pretty clear at this point - things like the 1918 Sedition laws are generally unConstitutional.

Brandenburg v. Ohio - was a state criminal syndicalism statute that was held unconstitutional because its condemnation of advocacy of crime, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism swept within its terms both mere advocacy as well as incitement to imminent lawless action.

The courts see a distinct difference between "advocacy" and "incitement".

[MIJ-VI]

Originally Posted by cassanova

I agree with what you're saying here and I completely understand and am okay with that.

To give further insight to my original post, some friends and I saw a clip of what were clearly radical religious extremists, preaching hatred & rebellion towards the United States. Stating things like "we disassociate ourselves with this flag and all that its government stands for," and imploring people to join their cause in taking down the "evil empire of the United States government."

My friends and I were discussing this earlier and one of them made the comment that they were exercising their right to free speech. I myself think it's seditious and they should've been arrested.

His comment is what lead to the second part of my question. Where do you draw the line without it violating peoples rights?

GOD
ONLY
KNOWS
WHO

[DerHoggz]

There have been a few cases at the Supreme Court level where advocating violent overthrow of the government was deemed illegal as it represented a threat to the general public.

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by DerHoggz

There have been a few cases at the Supreme Court level where advocating violent overthrow of the government was deemed illegal as it represented a threat to the general public.

I believe in all those cases it was decided that it wasn't "advocating the overthrow of the government" but "incitement to overthrow the government"

[cassanova]

Originally Posted by aborgman

I believe in all those cases it was decided that it wasn't "advocating the overthrow of the government" but "incitement to overthrow the government"

Wouldn't advocating it also be inciting people to do it?

[RonGillman3]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought we had the right to overthrow our Government if we saw fit?

IMO, free speech is free speech. No matter how bad it gets it is our right. I don't agree with how some people exercise that right but it is a right us Americans fought for.

[avvie]

It could easily be argued that the GOP's "Take our country back!" rally cry after Obama's election could be considered sedition as well. Is sedition the call to overthrow the government or to overthrow the will of the people? Who gets to decide when the government should be overthrown?

The Declaration of Independence lists 21 specific complaints as cause for sedition.... many- if not all- of those complaints are valid today.

[anonymous122511]

Originally Posted by cheezewiz

The concept of free speech does not mean speech without limit. For example, yelling "FIRE" in a theater is not free speech. Sedition isn't either.

You're wrong. Yelling "FIRE" is in fact free speech. This does not mean you won't be held accountable for the results of everything you say. If people are hurt as a result of you yelling "FIRE" you will be punished for that. If you yell "FIRE" and no one pays any attention or is hurt no crime is committed.

In no way shape or form should you ever be deprived of your right to say anything you want. If you don't have the opportunity to make mistakes you never get past making them. As long as you curtail the fundamental rights of people you fuel the very problems you seek to obliterate.

[cassanova]

Originally Posted by RonGillman3

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought we had the right to overthrow our Government if we saw fit?

That's a double edge sword IMO. Though, the individual citizen may feel they have the right to do that, the government itself would consider it high treason if we were to attempt it.

IMO, free speech is free speech. No matter how bad it gets it is our right. I don't agree with how some people exercise that right but it is a right us Americans fought for.

That's pretty much my usual take on it. However, we are supposedly at war with radicals like these. This fact alone, is why I'm surprised (but not that surprised), that these people were allowed to stand on the street, and openly speak about overthrowing the government via jihad, and demanding sharia law in America.

I'm looking also looking at it from a military point of view rather than the activist that I usually am. The Marine in me is viewing these people as the enemy, because they are actively promoting and attempting to recruit people to the same cause that Al Qaeda and other radical groups are trying to implement in the U.S. Perhaps if we were not at war with people like this then I'd say let them spew off at the mouth.

[tylerwylie]

Originally Posted by aborgman

I believe in all those cases it was decided that it wasn't "advocating the overthrow of the government" but "incitement to overthrow the government"

You know how much the State hates competition, especially when dealing with its prime export(violence, coercion).

[hrodbert696]

Originally Posted by avvie

It could easily be argued that the GOP's "Take our country back!" rally cry after Obama's election could be considered sedition as well. Is sedition the call to overthrow the government or to overthrow the will of the people? Who gets to decide when the government should be overthrown?

The Declaration of Independence lists 21 specific complaints as cause for sedition.... many- if not all- of those complaints are valid today.

no no no no no.

Criticizing current elected office-holders (or appointed ones, for that matter) and calling for them to be legally voted out in the next election is not sedition, it is participation in the democratic process.

The complaints in the Declaration of Independence are not individually grounds for revolution; the point of the document is that the English government had shown a pattern of tyrannical behavior without providing any avenue for redress or providing for representation by the colonists affected.

By the Declarations' ideology, a revolution becomes legitimate when (and only when) the government behaves tyrannically, which would be when it governs without the consent of the governed. Attempting to overthrow a government that does have the consent of the governed is not a revolution, it is a coup.

I believe that to be convicted for sedition, you need to have done more than say you think we ought to have a revolution; you need to tell specific people to do specific actions. That's more or less the distinction between "advocating" and "inciting." I'm not a lawyer, that may be somewhat off, but it's something to that effect.

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by tylerwylie

You know how much the State hates competition, especially when dealing with its prime export(violence, coercion).

Welcome to governance - where the populace decides to give the state a monopoly on legal violence.

It has it's issues, but it's much better than the alternative.

[Hoover]

Originally Posted by cassanova

Stating things like "we disassociate ourselves with this flag and all that its government stands for," and imploring people to join their cause in taking down the "evil empire of the United States government."

My friends and I were discussing this earlier and one of them made the comment that they were exercising their right to free speech. I myself think it's seditious and they should've been arrested.

If "free speech" is protected by the Constitution of a government that you've disassociated yourself from, you don't really have protected free speech, do you?

Originally Posted by hrodbert696

By the Declarations' ideology, a revolution becomes legitimate when (and only when) the government behaves tyrannically, which would be when it governs without the consent of the governed. Attempting to overthrow a government that does have the consent of the governed is not a revolution, it is a coup.

That's a fascinating distinction. I gotta chew on that one.

[DwaynieAD]

Originally Posted by Hoover

If "free speech" is protected by the Constitution of a government that you've disassociated yourself from, you don't really have protected free speech, do you?

this was my initial reaction, you disassociate yourself from the government then you disassociate yourself from its protections

[burk48237]

Originally Posted by jeff arddun

You're wrong. Yelling "FIRE" is in fact free speech. This does not mean you won't be held accountable for the results of everything you say. If people are hurt as a result of you yelling "FIRE" you will be punished for that. If you yell "FIRE" and no one pays any attention or is hurt no crime is committed.

In no way shape or form should you ever be deprived of your right to say anything you want. If you don't have the opportunity to make mistakes you never get past making them. As long as you curtail the fundamental rights of people you fuel the very problems you seek to obliterate.

Actually that's not true.

The whole "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is probably the most misquoted SCOTUS ruling in history.

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

The key issue is two-fold. To extend beyond the protections of the Constitution. The speech has to be false and it has to bring on a clear and present danger. The reason Wilson's Sedition laws were ruled unconstitutional is because the Wilson administration was arresting and censoring people merely for being critical of the war. He actually closed down several newspapers and magazines for criticizing the decision to enter WW I.

The key in US law from what I can tell, is the speech has to incite specific violence. In other words, having a "we need to take our country back" rally isn't specific enough. You could certainly "take the country back" theoretically by voting. If on the other hand you said, Bring your firearms and plenty of ammo to the "take our country back" rally, you would probably be in violation. And at the very least you might be responsible for any violent effects.