See query. I am not seeking legal advice.
I see there are distinct charges in the US. If the query amounts to “is murder felonious?” I would find that clarification interesting as well.
Came up in thread about unlikely Presidential political gambits.
Head start on Wiki:
Treason has a very specific definition in the United States, being the only federal crime defined in the constitution.
Treason can certainly involve sedition, but the two are not synonymous. Sedition also needs to be defined rather narrowly, to avoid running afoul of First Amendment protections of political speech.
Then, there is also the problem of the constitutional definition of Enemies. Since our executive and the congress have become very adept at waging war without declaring it. Without defining Enemies, there is no scope within which to define Treason.
The UK government ran into similar legal problems in the Second World War, finding that inherited mediaeval definitions simply didn’t cover all the most likely forms of betrayal or “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”.
But I’d have thought that in essence, sedition is something you do in public to incite others to harm your side, treason can be (and often is) something you do in secret to harm your own side.
Not that narrowly.
EXCEPT… the anti-terrorist laws have made it easier to prosecute, and they do use the Holmes definition… that the aid has to be actual or positive… not just a piece of paper “Stop bombing ISIS!”.
I think holmes was saying that it had to be material assistance - not just words hence the reference to free speech…
The modern definitions say that it could be positive words… “Destroy that factory. Blockade that naval base !” rather than requiring actual material support - giving money or weapons , recruiting or working for the enemeny (if only in communications ? operating the equipment to communicate ? carrying the notes ? . ) Basically because recruiting and communication could could be words not material… Holmes needed to split communication as part of the enemy force off from political opinion free speech… (which would probably not be in the positive …not a positive instruction for someone to help the enemy, but more of a negative… we , the people of XYZ, should not attack/resist… which is very vague about what this country XYZ does … its more about what it doesn’t do.)
I’m saying the Holmes dissent appears to have required a new set of laws.
Back to the OP … because Abrams was trying to force the current government to do something. (reduce the amount of interference in Europe.) rather than overthrow the government, it wasnt the word sedition actually. (They didnt suggest they would make the USA a marxist state ?? )
“Sedition” should only be what Holmes agreed would not be protected… actual encouragement of lawlessness. So I argue that its clear that people agreed with Holmes, but left the majority decision stand, perhaps to protect the constitutional overshoot… The constitution then protects the finer grained law that exists now. (It would be difficult to find a case that would be the constitutional crime and not newer law crime…)
Because organising a party to object to the government ? Well thats just organising a political party… Trump isn’t going to charge the Democrats with sedition , right ?
McCarthy era prosecutions and their annullments highlight this. That just talking about communist isn’t sedition. Meanwhile, there was no explicit legalisations of sedition, because its easy to step past the protections of “Freedom of speech”… and because they made newer laws ? A bit of a “sweep it under the carpet”… the poor Abrams conspirators.
All they were saying is what the USA had actually done - try hard to keep out of problems in europe…
Does it have to be foreign enemies? Or can you commit treason by assisting other Americans in attacking the United States?
I don’t think so. William Joyce’s actions were quite public but he was convicted of treason.
FYI you would think sedition laws would be U.S. Federal laws, however I have noticed sedition laws in U.S. state revised statutes.
So may want to poke around in your own state’s law books and see what they have to say about this. For example search google.com for…
sedition texas revised statutes
Also looking up the definition of the word “State” is interesting!
IIRC, giving "aid and comfort " does not apply in the case of a doctor/nurse/heath care worker treating an injured or ill patient…that happens to belong to the other side.
What about religeous or charitable organizations offering “Humanitarian Aid”?
According to Lord Coke’s Commentaries on the Statute of Winchester, “aiding” is
counselling, abetting, plotting, assenting, consenting, and encouraging to do the act,
and Blackstone defines aid and comfort within his definition of treason as:
It needs not be a foreign enemy. Americans have been convicted of treason during several rebellions, including the Whiskey Rebellion, Fries’s Rebellion, and the Civil War.
I know the last person convicted of sedition in Australia was a civil servant in 1960 who encouraged the natives in the territory of Papua New Guinea to demand independence (at the time, it was part of Australia).
Papua New Guinea was later given independence in 1975, FWIW.