I see a lot of the laws and policies being used against 'terrorism' as too vague and susceptible to abuse (imho the same thing with 'drugs'). There's nothing to stop a sufficiently determined administration from using a lot of these things to increase their power. I think we came pretty close to a precipice with the last administration, and I don't trust the current Supreme Court to limit this sort of thing when the issue is political. I am very disturbed by the current administration's reluctance to relinquish a lot of these frankly unconstitutional powers.
Well, these things are all true, of course.
Sedition, as a legal charge, shouldn't be applied in very many cases, god knows. Certainly, it doesn't need to use any time a more clear-cut charge can be brought. The Chicago Seven were threatened with charges of sedition but actually tried for conspiracy (to incite a riot). Of course, they weren't convicted . . . and the AG who charged them was later convicted on federal conspiracy charges in the Watergate brouhaha, if I remember correctly. [snrk]
Inciting a riot is clearly a bad thing; conspiracy to incite a riot is clearly a bad thing. As far as I can tell, the Chicago Seven did not intend to incite a riot, and I think at most they were negligent -- under circumstances that made it pretty understandable, although they could surely have been liable for damages.
The cops, choosing to bust up the demonstration and arrest the Seven, certainly went a lot further toward inciting a riot, if you ask me, although this is poor judgment more than criminality. And frankly it's a situation that's difficult to handle correctly. The AG was far more at fault than the cops in that particular bit. The Seven made some poor choices, such as giving demonstrators (many of whom were openly hoping for a riot) organized lessons in how to fight back against police brutality should riot cops show up. If you're out in the park with a big crowd of people, giving classes in how to fight the cops, you have to expect the cops will get edgy.
Of course, some of the Seven
were provocateurs. Hoffman certainly accepted trouble-making as a legitimate way of generating public awareness, and he also accepted that there were consequences. Not that I blame him for resisting the consequences when they got out of hand. It was a contentious time, let's face it.
I do think it's legally actionable when Teabaggers call for violence against political figures -- or against anyone else. I also think that 'sedition' would be a bad thing to label it from a legal standpoint. Inciting, conspiracy, criminal enterprise . . . really, these are plenty, where applicable.
Civil lawsuits can deal with the situation well enough in many cases. If Sarah Palin said that people ought to do something bad to Harry Reid, and then one of her fans did something bad to Reid, I think a lot of juries would find her liable, and I think that's defensible.
