Author Topic: Sedition?  (Read 6701 times)

Dr. Leonard HmofCoy

  • I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,743
  • Karma: +205/-69
  • His BRAIN is gone
Re: Sedition?
« Reply #15 on: March 29, 2010, 04:39:34 PM »
:hmm:
"Parasitic wasps laying eggs in other insects is a better love story than Twilight." - :bitzero:
"Anyhow, it was the best sentient food movie since Killer Tomatoes Eat France." - :flipper:
"lee marvin in drag is no way to spread the gospel, son." - TFJ
"It failed. My enemies have been purged." - Sidious
"It's not like there was ever a time I didn't think Rudy Giuliani was a smug gibbering imbecile." - random axe
"*drags taint* Oh cool, I didn't know you could do that." - mo.d

mo

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,811
  • Karma: +136/-55
    • x
Re: Sedition?
« Reply #16 on: March 29, 2010, 04:41:04 PM »
You have been watching the news while you were on vacation, right?
It's symbolic of our struggle against reality.

pdrake

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,413
  • Karma: +22/-48
Re: Sedition?
« Reply #17 on: March 29, 2010, 04:48:31 PM »
i'm going to back out of this because i tend to come off as a dick on these topics. just know i agree with you all and am trying to curtail my quick trigger.

JUST WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN, HUH?!



Just kiddin. ;)


you'd be surprised how much a nutsack can stretch. you have to stretch it yourself, not a woman. they don't do it quite right.

Dr. Leonard HmofCoy

  • I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,743
  • Karma: +205/-69
  • His BRAIN is gone
Re: Sedition?
« Reply #18 on: March 29, 2010, 04:50:34 PM »
Here's my thing. 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. I think the statute you quoted is sufficiently specific that it doesn't seem terribly dangerous in that sense to me, mo. Whew.
"Parasitic wasps laying eggs in other insects is a better love story than Twilight." - :bitzero:
"Anyhow, it was the best sentient food movie since Killer Tomatoes Eat France." - :flipper:
"lee marvin in drag is no way to spread the gospel, son." - TFJ
"It failed. My enemies have been purged." - Sidious
"It's not like there was ever a time I didn't think Rudy Giuliani was a smug gibbering imbecile." - random axe
"*drags taint* Oh cool, I didn't know you could do that." - mo.d

mo

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,811
  • Karma: +136/-55
    • x
Re: Sedition?
« Reply #19 on: March 29, 2010, 05:05:13 PM »
Oh, I know exactly what you mean. After what we've been through with teh Bush administration, and what we've seen come out of the supreme court, it's scary. I had to read that code a couple of times before I noticed how consistent they were about using "by force". It was only then that I could get behind it.

But honestly, even with that, I think of "by force" to mean like with guns or some type of weapons. I can imagine the supreme court ruling that refusing to get out of the way of the government's tank was a show of force.

It's symbolic of our struggle against reality.

mo

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,811
  • Karma: +136/-55
    • x
Re: Sedition?
« Reply #20 on: March 29, 2010, 05:19:49 PM »
I just re-read your comment and realized I repeated most of what you had already said  :redface: I read through it too quickly the first time. Obviously we agree on the situation  :lol:

As far as the current administration goes, I think it's more of a problem of they don't know how to get things done, rather than a problem of not wanting to change. They need a non-evil version of Cheney.
It's symbolic of our struggle against reality.

pdrake

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,413
  • Karma: +22/-48
Re: Sedition?
« Reply #21 on: March 29, 2010, 05:28:15 PM »
As far as the current administration goes, I think it's more of a problem of they don't know how to get things done, rather than a problem of not wanting to change. They need a non-evil version of Cheney.

i think it's a problem of politicians keeping a debate lingering as long as possible no matter who suffers. both parties have been neglecting constituents for too long and only concentrating on big business for themselves, special interests and lobbyists. change would happen much quicker . . .

nevermind
you'd be surprised how much a nutsack can stretch. you have to stretch it yourself, not a woman. they don't do it quite right.

random axe

  • Concerned Netizen
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,929
  • Karma: +92/-20
  • Concern Intensifies
Re: Sedition?
« Reply #22 on: March 29, 2010, 05:58:42 PM »
Quote
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. 

mo

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,811
  • Karma: +136/-55
    • x
Re: Sedition?
« Reply #23 on: March 29, 2010, 06:32:47 PM »
Quote
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.

Agreed. I do think this may get some of the Teabagger's attention though. At least some of the more rational ones. But I wouldn't rule out a future use of the sedition conspiracy charge against them, or more specifically, small groups within the large group. Who knows what some of the fringe groups may be planning.

Could it be that the word sedition has connotations attached to it that makes it unappealing?
It's symbolic of our struggle against reality.

stormneedle

  • Trusted
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,776
  • Karma: +118/-42
  • Nonsense Stuffer
    • Your page here!
Re: Sedition?
« Reply #24 on: March 29, 2010, 07:01:31 PM »
I wonder why in the federal oaths they have us swear not to commit sedition as defined above, but don't call it that. It's not a word that gets enough usage that its meaning would shift over the years.
I'm generalizing from one example here, but everyone generalizes from one example. At least, I do.

Tripper

  • Trusted
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 944
  • Karma: +84/-21
  • Go ahead, make my millennium
    • Benson-Photo
Re: Sedition?
« Reply #25 on: March 29, 2010, 08:54:58 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, of which #3, the Alien Enemies Act, is still in effect today.

random axe

  • Concerned Netizen
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,929
  • Karma: +92/-20
  • Concern Intensifies
Re: Sedition?
« Reply #26 on: March 29, 2010, 09:11:49 PM »
Better keep some of your crew from beaming down, Cap'n.

Tripper

  • Trusted
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 944
  • Karma: +84/-21
  • Go ahead, make my millennium
    • Benson-Photo
Re: Sedition?
« Reply #27 on: March 29, 2010, 09:23:25 PM »
You have to be at war with the US.  Buzzing poor sods in the middle of nowhere and mutilating the odd cow doesn't count.

random axe

  • Concerned Netizen
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,929
  • Karma: +92/-20
  • Concern Intensifies
Re: Sedition?
« Reply #28 on: March 29, 2010, 09:40:38 PM »
Fair enough, but just having weapons in space is a sort of a violation of international law.

flipper

  • Ultimate Pick Up Line
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,346
  • Karma: +128/-54
  • Criticism Completes Me
    • Myspace
Re: Sedition?
« Reply #29 on: March 31, 2010, 03:47:25 PM »
When ever I hear the word sedition I automatically start singing "Tradition" from Fiddler on the Roof but replacing it with sedition.
"It all trickles down from the hot sex. I'm not saying you don't need cheese, just that if you concentrate on the hot sex, the cheese will follow. Naturally."--PsiDefect 03-19-2002 11:28 AM