A definition :
Written or spoken words, pictures, signs, or other forms of communication that tend to defame, discredit, criticize, impugn, embarrass, challenge, or question the government, its policies, or its officials; speech that advocates the overthrow of the government by force or violence or that incites people to change the government by unlawful means.
The truth wasn’t a defense. Lack of intent to cause sedition wasn’t a defense. Spelling it ‘defence’ wasn’t even a defense.
This was only repealed by section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which, contrary to reasonable expectation, was only passed in 2009 .
I simply can’t imagine that in 2008, the UK’s government was prosecuting people for annoying it. I can only imagine the repeal was something they snuck in upon realizing an obsolete embarrassment was still hanging around.
When was the last time someone was convicted of violating it? Who was that person?
(BTW: John Peter Zenger was acquitted. Jury nullification.)
http://www.lrwc.org/news/news_rules4.php
The last conviction in England for seditious libel occurred in 1909.[23] This was a prosecution of the printer of the Indian Socialist, a publication that advocated independence for India. The last prosecution for seditious libel initiated by the English crown was in l947 and this prosecution ended in an acquittal.[24] In l991, a private individual sought to compel a magistrate to issue a summons for seditious libel and blasphemy based on the book Satanic Verses, against both the author, Salman Rushdie, and the printer. The Queen’s Bench Division, on judicial review of the magistrate’s refusal to issue the summons, found as a fact that Satanic Verses contained passages that promoted hostility and ill-will amongst the Queen’s subjects and had caused the breakdown of diplomatic relations between Britain and Iran, but did not disclose an intention to incite violence against constituted authority.
Very interesting, thank you.