I have diminishing confidence in the integrity of the vote-counting process, for reasons too obvious to go into here. I also have a problem with the ballot-access laws (which present a much, much higher barrier to independents and third-party candidates than to Republicrat candidates) and campaign-financing laws (the “wealth primary,” etc.) that, in effect, sharply and arbitrarily limit the potential scope of choices presented to voters in the booth. And all of that is stuff that must be resolved before we can even consider reforming the basic structure of our electoral system to make it more open, fair and democratic (e.g., by introducing ballot fusion, instant-runoff voting, proportional representation). I don’t think we’re living in a total sham-democracy like Hussein’s Iraq – but I’m willing to give a open-minded listen to persons more radical than myself who think exactly that.
Um…exactly why would calling for the death of the leader in another country be illegal here? How would this be sedition exactly? Even assuming the country in question was an ally (which Venezuela would not be by any stretch of the imagination) I don’t see exactly how the two relate.
Well…yeah. Understand I’m no fan of Pat Robertson…I think he’s a slimy dog of the first magnitude. However, there seems to be a clear difference between calling for the assassination of a foreign ruler (especially since Pat Robertson has no real means and probably no intention of personally carrying out the threat) and advocating the violent overthrow of our OWN government. For one thing, Mr Robertson is actually HERE…the vast majority of whatever losers are considered his ‘followers’ are HERE. So, the focus of the threat is HERE…not in Venezuela.
Now, if Mr. Robertson makes good on his threat and actually attempts, or has his followers attempt to assassinate the President of Venezuela or the Pope in Rome…well, then you would have something we COULD get him on.
Seems pretty clear cut to me. Obviously in THEIR country it WOULD be sedition…just like when folks in other countries make threats against us. I’ve seen numerous times where someone or the other will threaten the US, the US government, the President, etc etc. In some cases its by the actual government of a foreign nation. Yet they wouldn’t be charged with sedition HERE. Right?
-XT
Ok, fair enough. Then why do you keep asking people “Do you honestly believe that?!” when they make reference to our government being by the people? I’ve seen at least 3 examples in the last 2 weeks where you made a similar reference to a similar statement. You do understand that YOUR views aren’t exactly universally recognized…yes? So, instead of asking ‘do you honestly believe that?’ you should just mention that YOU don’t believe it instead.
Personally I DO believe it…yes. And so do most other folks to a greater or lesser degree. Your view being the minority opinion, its kind of silly to ask folks if they REALLY believe it…don’t you think?
-XT
Well, duh, it wouldn’t be sedition at all, of course! But I thought this debate was about whether we ought to have US laws against sedition, not whether advocating violent overthrow of foreign governments is seditious.
The point I was trying to make is that criminalizing sedition sort of bothers me, precisely because of the way it privileges special treatment for the US over freedom of speech.
Have I made myself more clear this time? I’m not sure I can think of a better way to explain what I’m trying to say here, and I’m a little startled that it was evidently so misunderstandable.
Is there any country, I wonder, where sedition is not a crime? Does anybody know?
The Supreme Court has never ruled anti-sedition laws unconstitutional on their face, but has allowed them to be enforced only in a very restrictive manner. One of the most current interpretations was in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). It concerned a state law against “advocacy of criminal syndicalism” which was worded very similarly to the federal law quoted above. The Supreme Court ruled:
So if you want to have a bull session in GD about the necessity for a coup to get rid of those chumps in Washington, SCOTUS probably won’t sustain your conviction. If you start laying plans to meet with bombs and machine guns next Wednesday morning, that’s a different story.
Given this restricted interpretation, I’m hard pressed to imagine what conduct would run afoul of these laws that wouldn’t violate other laws against conspiracy to commit property destruction or murder. We got along without federal anti-sedition laws from 1801 to 1918 and from 1921 to 1940, and I think we could do likewise today.
It’s not an unfair way to phrase the question, and it makes an irresistible forensic chain-jerker! 