The U.S. Sedition Act

Discussion in 'Politics' started by MondoTrader, Mar 11, 2003.

  1. 16 May, 1918
    The U.S. Sedition Act

    United States, Statutes at Large, Washington, D.C., 1918, Vol. XL, pp 553 ff. A portion of the amendment to Section 3 of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917.SECTION 3.

    Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....
  2. "and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein"

    sounds like half the damn democrats and 2/3rds of the idiots in hollywood deserve to go to jail if they keep up the B.S. after the war starts. They can start with Sean Penn.
  3. I think you need a formal declaration of war to prosecute. At least, that seems to be the way it has been applied.

    If you study the history of the First Amendment cases, people were prosecuted and sent to jail during WW I for prettty mild protest action. The bounds of acceptable dissent seem to have expanded drastically.

    I think First Amendment protest law is in need of an overhaul. While I think citizens, and I use that term advisedly, have a right to express dissent, I don;t think the first Amendment was intended to give a right to large scale street demonstrations. There is no reason our cities have to be closed down to allow a bunch of marxists babbling about globalization to riot.

    An example of where this leads was during the Iran hostage crisis when thousands of sullen Iranian "students" staged repeated anti-american marches through Washington. No doubt most of them are still here and desperately wish Uncle Satan would kick out the ayotollahs so they could go home.

    If you want to dissent, buya newspaper ad, hold up a sign or write an op-ed letter. When you start disrupting traffic, you are no longer protesting, you are rioting and should be tossed in jail.
  4. true, just giving a warning to those who might think it is fun to give support to the enemy or to attack the morale of our soldiers.

  5. "Congress shall make no law respecting ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

    The First Amendment seems pretty clear on peaceful assembly.

    would you jail those that marched with King in the 60's? have to wonder if op-eds would have been as effective as the D.C. Mall speech...

    to have any meaning, the First Amendment must also apply to speech you don't like. to insure that the King marches take place, you have to allow the babbling marxists to do the same, provided they do not resort to violence.
  6. does criticism of US administration policy equate to 'support of the enemy'? or to 'attacking morale'?
  7. rs7


    This is about the most narrow minded and bigoted (and truly dumb) post I have ever read.

    "Damn Democrats" if half the "damn democrats" should be in jail, this shameful excuse for an American, Mondo, believes that over a quarter of our voting age citizens should be locked up?

    Of course the facts are totally ignored. But reactionary right wingers never seem to care much about facts anyway.

    Aside from the obvious fact that we are not at war, and will not be, even if we invade Iraq (there will not be a formal declaration of war), I have not heard of ANY Democrats, or other "damn liberals" or for that matter any Americans at all, either "speaking or acting in support of, or favoring the cause of" Iraq's government. Not one. And again, we are not at war. But regardless of this minor detail, I have only heard dissent about our approach and tactics about exactly HOW to depose Saddam. Or when. Which has no relationship to what this idiot is trying to imply.

    Just another lame attempt to put false blame on people with no basis in fact. Stereotyping more than half the registered voters in the country as being guilty of sedition. It would be laughable if it weren't so scary that there are such dangerous minds spewing forth such garbage. This kind of broad slander is reminiscent of Hitler's approach to politics in pre-war Germany.

    SAD. And SCARY.

    I cannot call this guy Mondo "Brother" or include him as "Brethren". This is a scary nazi. Is Mondo just a misspelling of MONO as in how many brain cells occupy his skull?

  8. rs7


    ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a registered Democrat, or any American citizen who " thinks it is fun to give support to the enemy or to attack the morale of our soldiers" would be interesting to hear.

    Mono Brain Cell...give it up. Go lock yourself in your room and listen to your David Duke and George Lincoln Rockwell tapes and keep dabbing aloe on your swastika tattoos. And don't forget to use bleach and starch on you KKK hood.

  9. This is the liberal's idea of the First Amendment: Anyone who disagrees with me shut the fuck up.
  10. Massive street demonstrations that shut down cities are not "peaceable assembly" in my view. The intent of the Framers was to prevent the government from banning political gatherings, for example renting a hall for a speech, not granting a broad right to anyone with a grudge to shut down a city. When you talk about marches, you are talking about conduct not speech. Conduct can be regulated much more closely than pure speech.

    I find it ironic that the same left wing crowd who wrap themselves in the First Amendment to justify violent marxist and anti-american demonstrations are quite happy to see pro-life demonstrators jailed. Guess that "peaceably assemble" stuff doesn't apply to them.
    #10     Mar 17, 2003