Sedition

- Wikipedia: Sedition.

Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech or organization, that tends toward rebellion against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or insurrection against, established 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 interest of sedition.

Because sedition is overt, it is typically not considered a subversive act, and the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary by jurisdiction.

- Britannica: Sedition.

Sedition, crime against the state. Though sedition may have the same ultimate effect as treason, it is generally limited to the offense of organizing or encouraging opposition to government in a manner (such as in speech or writing) that falls short of the more dangerous offenses constituting treason.

The publication of seditious writing (“seditious libel”) or the utterance of seditious speech (“seditious words”) was made a crime in English common law. Modern statutes have been more specific. The display of a certain flag or the advocacy of a particular movement such as criminal syndicalism or anarchy have been declared from time to time to be seditious. In the United States after World War II, loyalty oaths were imposed for some government officials, and investigations and dismissals of certain public employees were made on the basis of their associations with suspect causes and groups.

- Wikipedia: Alien and Sedition Acts (1798).

The Sedition Act made it illegal to make false or malicious statements about the federal government. The act was used to suppress speech critical of the Adams administration, including the prosecution and conviction of many Jeffersonian newspaper owners who disagreed with the Federalist Party. The Sedition Act did not extend enforcement to speech about the Vice President, as then-incumbent Thomas Jefferson was a political opponent of the Federalist-controlled Congress. The Sedition Act was allowed to expire in 1800, and its enactment is credited with helping Jefferson win the presidential election that year.

- Wikipedia: Sedition Act of 1918.

The Sedition Act of 1918 (Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 65–150, 40 Stat. 553, enacted May 16, 1918) was an Act of the United States Congress that extended the Espionage Act of 1917 to cover a broader range of offenses, notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds.

It forbade the use of "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, its flag, or its armed forces or that caused others to view the American government or its institutions with contempt. Those convicted under the act generally received sentences of imprisonment for five to 20 years. The act also allowed the Postmaster General to refuse to deliver mail that met those same standards for punishable speech or opinion. It applied only to times "when the United States is in war". The U.S. was in a declared state of war at the time of passage, the First World War. The law was repealed on December 13, 1920.

 
- Wikipedia: Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".: 702  Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. In the process, Whitney v. California (1927) was explicitly overruled, and Schenck v. United States (1919), Abrams v. United States (1919), Gitlow v. New York (1925), and Dennis v. United States (1951) were overturned.

- Sedition in England: The Abolition of a Law From a Bygone Era.

- Two Treatises of Government.

 

From Wikipedia: James T. Callender

A controversial media figure from the founding era.

We've always had an unruly press. All that changes in available technology.

- Click here for the entry.

James Thomson Callender (1758 – July 17, 1803) was a political pamphleteer and journalist whose writing was controversial in his native Scotland and later, also in the United States. His revelations concerning George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and later Thomas Jefferson, led to his marginalization politically. His contemporary reputation as a "scandalmonger" has overshadowed Callender's frequently perceptive analyses of revolutionary events.[citation needed] He wrote against the continuing influence of the British Crown, and he warned that Adams, Washington and Hamilton planned to impose a titled aristocracy and hereditary positions in the Senate and the Executive.[1] In the United States, he was a central figure in the press wars between the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties. After Jefferson won the presidency, Callender solicited employment as a postmaster, which was denied by Jefferson. Callender then published existing rumors claiming President Jefferson had children with slave Sally Hemings.

Self-educated, Callender worked as a recorder of deeds in Scotland when he began publishing satire. He turned to politics, some thought to sedition, in a pamphlet, The Political Progress of Britain, which caused a furor and led him to flee Great Britain for America. He gained notoriety in Philadelphia in the 1790s with reportage and attacks on Alexander Hamilton. Subsequently, he was imprisoned under the Alien and Sedition Acts, and later turned against his one-time Democratic-Republican patrons. In 1803, he drowned, apparently falling in the James River due to intoxication — although there was some speculation among Federalists that his death may not have been an accident, as he was due to testify in a highly publicized trial later that month.

What Happens If You're Found Guilty Of Sedition?

- 18 USC 2384: Seditious conspiracy.

- Wikipedia: Seditious Conspiracy.

- NYT: Oath Keepers Leader Convicted of Sedition in Landmark Jan. 6 Case.

- Insider: What is the potential penalty if someone is convicted of 'seditious conspiracy'

Michael McDaniel, Director of Homeland Law at Cooley Law School, told Insider the case against the Proud Boys would likely carry with it the maximum sentence of 20 years, based on the magnitude of the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

"To me, this was a textbook case," McDaniel said. "It was the fact that they were smashing windows, pouring into the Capitol, at exactly the time that the Senate is counting, under the election Control Act, they're counting the ballots of the electors from each state. That's what made this so egregious to me and made it seem seditious to me from the beginning."

The last time the United States prosecuted anyone under the seditious conspiracy law was in the case of the Hutaree militia in 2010, when nine members of the so-called "Christian Patriot" movement were arrested for plotting to kill police officers and attack additional officers at their funerals.

In the case of the Hutaree militia, defense lawyers argued the men were play fighting and their criticism of the government was protected under the First Amendment. A judge dropped the sedition charges before the defendants faced a jury, in part due to concerns about protected speech.

"There's been this theme ever since where the question is, were the individuals just criticizing the government?" McDaniels said. "Or were they discussing the conspiracy itself, was it a part of the illegal agreement?"

In order for the Proud Boys to be convicted of the seditious conspiracy charges, McDaniels said, four elements have to be proven in court.

"You have to have an agreement to carry out a criminal act. Secondly, it has to be criminal, it has to be illegal. Third, you have to knowingly participate," McDaniels said. "The prosecutor has to prove that the individuals who have been indicted now knew that this was an activity on behalf of everybody involved. And then there has to be some overt act, you have to be advancing the goal of the conspiracy."

__________

- From Lawfare: Seditious Kvetching: The Surprisingly Non-Trivial Defense in the Oath Keepers Prosecution.

- From Wikipedia: Sedition.

- From Wikipedia: Conspiracy.

- Seditious Conspiracy, The Smith Act, and Prosecution forReligious Speech Advocating the Violent Overthrow ofGovernment.

From the Supreme Court Observer: Sedition was Created to Prevent the Criticism of the King

- Click here for the article.

Sedition was devised as a tool in 13th century Britain to suppress the freedom of the printing press and its ability to criticise the King. The Sedition Act, 1661 imposed punishment on anyone who wrote, printed or preached any words against the King. It evolved to mean slander and libel against the reputation or actions of government officials and judges. The goal was to protect the faith that the common person had in the government and to avoid a ‘breach of peace’ in society.

- Charles II, 1661: An Act for Safety and Preservation of His Majesties Person and Government against Treasonable and Seditious practices and attempts.

US Introduced Sedition to Protect the Federal Government

In 1798, the Sedition Act was passed under the presidency of John Adams, to criminalise the making of false statements against the federal government. It was designed to expire in 1801 since the justification for making these laws was the protection of the government during the Quasi-War.

The mention and criminalisation of sedition was next seen during World War I. Section 3 of The Sedition Act, 1918 was drafted to punish anyone making false statements that interfered with the U.S. war efforts. This included insulting the U.S. government, flag, Constitution or military.

The most prominent case in this regard is In Re Debs, where a socialist worker Eugene Debs was sentenced to 10 years in prison for an anti-war speech. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that the freedom of speech and expression could be curtailed under certain circumstances.

In 1921 the Act was repealed. The case of Sullivan v New York Times upheld the freedom of speech under the First Amendment, which affected the treatment of libel. The U.S. Supreme Court held that unless a statement was made with malice or reckless disregard for the truth, the First Amendment protected the criticism of public officials.

The Press

Information

- how to get it

- how to process it

Acquisition of Information

Access to Information

- Freedom of Information.



Jefferson: Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes

Jefferson: The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro’ the channel of the public papers, & to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them.


Common Terms

the printing press
literacy
evolution of media rights
censorship
sedition
propaganda
John Peter Zenger
the business of media
Benjamin Franklin
radio
television
cable
internet
social media
infotainment 
traditional media
new media
social media
mass media
information
loud signal
political watchdog
policy agenda
fireside chats
personal presidency
fake news
media bias
reporters
journalism
- skepticism
- fairness
editors 
producers
owners
consumers
public relations
Watergate scandal
- others
objectivity
fairness
government impact
private / public ownership
First Amendment 
promotion
post offices and post roads
FRC / FCC
regulations
fairness doctrine
Telecommunications Act
consolidation

The Origins of the Doctrine of Sedition

- Click here if interested. 

From Wikipedia: Alien and Sedition Acts

The first step to a legal two party system.

- Click here for the entry. 

The Alien and Sedition Acts were four acts passed by the Federalist-dominated 5th United States Congress and signed into law by President John Adams in 1798.[1][a] They made it harder for an immigrant to become a citizen (Naturalization Act), allowed the president to imprison and deport non-citizens who were deemed dangerous ("An Act Concerning Aliens", also known as the "Alien Friends Act" of 1798)[2] or who were from a hostile nation ("Alien Enemy Act" of 1798),[3] and criminalized making 'false statements' critical of the federal government ("Sedition Act" of 1798).[4] The "Alien Friends Act" expired two years after its passage, and the "Sedition Act" expired on 3 March 1801, while the "Naturalization Act" and "Alien Enemies Act" had no expiration clause.

The Federalists argued that the bills strengthened national security during the Quasi-War, an undeclared naval war with France from 1798 to 1800. Critics argued that they were primarily an attempt to suppress voters who disagreed with the Federalist party and its teachings, and violated the right of freedom of speech in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[5]

The Naturalization Act increased the residency requirement for American citizenship from five to fourteen years. At the time, the majority of immigrants supported Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans, the political opponents of the Federalists.[1] The Alien Friends Act allowed the president to imprison or deport aliens considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States" at any time, while the Alien Enemies Act authorized the president to do the same to any male citizen of a hostile nation above the age of fourteen during times of war. Lastly, the controversial Sedition Act restricted speech that was critical of the federal government. Under the Sedition Act, the Federalists allowed people who were accused of violating the sedition laws to use truth as a defense.[6] The Sedition Act resulted in the prosecution and conviction of many Jeffersonian newspaper owners who disagreed with the government.[6]

The acts were denounced by Democratic-Republicans and ultimately helped them to victory in the 1800 election, when Thomas Jefferson defeated the incumbent, President Adams. The Sedition Act and the Alien Friends Act were allowed to expire in 1800 and 1801, respectively. The Alien Enemies Act, however, remains in effect as Chapter 3; Sections 21–24 of Title 50 of the United States Code.[7] It was used by the government to identify and imprison allegedly "dangerous enemy" aliens from Germany, Japan, and Italy in World War II. (This was separate from the Japanese internment camps used to remove people of Japanese descent from the West Coast.) After the war they were deported to their home countries. In 1948 the Supreme Court determined that presidential powers under the acts continued after cessation of hostilities until there was a peace treaty with the hostile nation. The revised Alien Enemies Act remains in effect today.

Iconic Photograph Censored.

Hasidic Paper Removes Hillary Clinton From Osama Picture.

Ai Weiwei and the Artist's Role in China

Here's a debate in the NYT - relevant to 2301's discussion of free speech and sedition - about China's suppression of an artist critical of the government.

The Consent of the Governed?

American government is based on the principle of the consent of the governed, but in a diverse competitive democracy, not everyone consents to everything governments do. One of the virtues of a two year electoral cycle is that those who do not consent to the politics of the moment can focus on a relatively quick opportunity to try to change things.

This assumes that they are willing to wait. Charles Blow might be being a bit paranoid, but I'd like my students to read this over and tell me what you think. He argues that as a consequence of the recent election, conservatives:

. . . feel isolated, angry, betrayed and besieged. And some of their “leaders” seem to be trying to mold them into militias. For some, their disaffection has hardened into something more dark and dangerous. They’re talking about a revolution.

Some simply lace their unscrupulous screeds with loaded language about the fall of the Republic. We have to “rise up” and “take back our country.” Others have been much more explicit.

For example, Chuck Norris, the preeminent black belt and prospective Red Shirt, wrote earlier this month on the conservative blog WorldNetDaily: “How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution?”

Are they right to be worried? Is this a correct response (assuming Blow is correct in his assumption)? Considering they are threatening violence against a duly elected president, are they guilty of edition? Or perhaps this is a healthy way to blow off steam?