It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Free Speech Vs. Sedition

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Never would I have thought that there would be cause to evaluate and compare the two. (Thanks MSM
)

The first amendment guarantees freedom of press.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

www.law.cornell.edu...

In essence, no law can be made to shut down the freedom of press. How does this apply to media?

From Merriam Webster:

newspapers or journalists viewed collectively.
"the press was notified"
synonyms: the media, the newspapers, the papers, the news media, the fourth estate; More
journalists, reporters, newspapermen/newspaperwomen, newsmen/newswomen, pressmen;
informaljournos, newshounds, newsies
"the freedom of the press"

coverage in newspapers and magazines.
"there's no point in demonstrating if you don't get any press"
synonyms: (press) reports, press coverage, press articles, (press) reviews, media attention
"the company had some bad press"


Fairly lock tight. Perhaps someone more intelligent will come around and point out the loophole.

Now, let's look at sedition.



If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

www.law.cornell.edu...

This can easily be refuted by some key points in the law. One stands out however and that is put down. While I am not immediately clear on what the laws definition of put down is, it is there.

Also is the "conspire to overthrow," which is been increasing demand.

At what point is the intent clear? How far can the media(press) go?




posted on May, 16 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI

At what point is the intent clear? How far can the media(press) go?


CNN, MSNBC, and the Big3+1 are right on the edge.

They always back off just in time.




posted on May, 16 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Given the quantity of stories and false or misleading information they've collectively (press) has put out, I'd think that would qualify. Is a public response needed?



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

So are you thinking that the Monsantos of the world are guilty of sedition? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You also forgot to put in a definition:


con·spire
kənˈspī(ə)r/
verb
make secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful or harmful act.
"they conspired against him"
synonyms: plot, scheme, plan, intrigue, machinate, collude, connive, collaborate, work hand in glove; informalbe in cahoots
"they admitted conspiring to steal cars"
(of events or circumstances) seem to be working together to bring about a particular result, typically to someone's detriment.


If it's in the press, it's not conspiring. Conspiring requires an element of secrecy.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Oh yeah, I would love to see that idiot olberman get tried for treason and sedition.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Well, I didn't think that I would need to source the definition of conspiracy but now it's here!





If it's in the press, it's not conspiring. Conspiring requires an element of secrecy.


When an article is printed or posted, how many do you suppose use the same verbiage? Some even the exact same headline. In your opinion do you think that is a coincidence?

There is a concerted effort to bring down the democratically elected president. Some accusations under false pretenses pushed by a media narrative. That is conspiracy.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 10:01 PM
link   
In my personal opinion I think sedition laws are inherently un-American, because we the people are supposed to be the rulers of the Government and not the other way around.

But... with that said, there are sedition laws and they are fairly self explanatory, and there has been cases of people being prosecuted for sedition.

Here is a good page with more information.

People and institutions should be free to say and/or criticize the Government in any way even if it is false criticism. Now making false statements and/or criticisms against an individual is a different thing and if shown to harm the character of the person then it's libel.

Now can we say that all this (apparently) false information that is being spread about Trump sedition or is it just libel or both.

IMO it appears to be just libel, as there is really no calling for the removal of the whole Government just Trump.

This of course is in respect to the "news" media. Now if we want to talk about some of the more vocal "progressives" that want anarchy, or a socialist state, or whatever, then I would think that they could be brought up on sedition charges.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad




People and institutions should be free to say and/or criticize the Government in any way even if it is false criticism


Agreed.

However, what we are witnessing is not false criticism. It's criminal allegations. I'm fully aware and support the peoples right to speech and opinion. What I'm not ok is with a collusive media dictating brainwashing for the masses.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   
I interpret free speech as criticism. If you criticize the president and make a case for your criticism. That's fine. If you call out for assassinating the president or foreign army to topple the president. That's not criticism. That's not free speech. That's sedition. Free speech has its limits. Everything has its limits.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   
This very topic has been had been coming up lately. I.e and not only on the net. When people start taking about this in the open, which they are we have a serious problem. One thing is certain and that is Media Outlets seem to be on fine line and all Americans know it.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Are criminal allegations covered under free speech?



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Only if there is evidence.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Unfortunately the way our founders envisioned our system of government to work (IMO) it allows for excessive influencing of the populace, and if the populace is stupid enough or willfully ignorant of their propagandization, well... we get the government/country we deserve.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

Again, agreed. With the caveat of does it cover criminal allegations.

Do you have the right to collectively fling false allegations with the intend of removing a sitting president?

I realize what your saying, really. Also, free speech is an absolute. I want to talk about that grey area in between.

Also, you are absolutely correct in making the distinction between government and private persons.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 10:43 PM
link   
They're basically yelling fire in a theater full of morons at this point.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI


Also, you are absolutely correct in making the distinction between government and private persons.


And that is why I did it, because yes they are making criminal allegations against Trump, and even if for some reason Trump were to be removed because of these false allegations, the Republic will survive (well maybe) and we'll have President Pence.

Now if the removal of Trump caused a wide spread civil war and put the Republic in jeopardy, and if we were to survive the civil war, then IMO a case could be made for sedition on the part of the news media.

So they are walking a very fine line.

Of course in my above scenarios all the allegations are false but still have the desired affect (removing Trump)

Sorry missed this one


Do you have the right to collectively fling false allegations with the intend of removing a sitting president?


If he was to be removed on false allegations then he would have a case of libel IMO.

Damn it .... I think he could make a case for libel right now, but pursuing a case would be difficult and would most definitely raise a stink.


edit on 16-5-2017 by LockNLoad because: added

edit on 16-5-2017 by LockNLoad because: typo

edit on 16-5-2017 by LockNLoad because: added more

edit on 16-5-2017 by LockNLoad because: another damn typo



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

How far can the press go?

They went too far from the day he was elected.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad


Damn it .... I think he could make a case for libel right now, but pursuing a case would be difficult and would most definitely raise a stink.


Without giving the POTUS too much credit...do you think all the trollery is orchestrated?

Early in his campaign he was very adamant about libel laws and such.

I'll have to ponder that one.



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Honestly... I 'would' like to think he's "playing 4D chess" but.... to what end really??? And what ever the end is will it hurt or help the Nation???

Yep thoughts for pondering indeed.



posted on May, 18 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Well, I didn't think that I would need to source the definition of conspiracy but now it's here!





If it's in the press, it's not conspiring. Conspiring requires an element of secrecy.


When an article is printed or posted, how many do you suppose use the same verbiage? Some even the exact same headline. In your opinion do you think that is a coincidence?

There is a concerted effort to bring down the democratically elected president. Some accusations under false pretenses pushed by a media narrative. That is conspiracy.


It's free speech.

There was a concerted effort by the right to bring down a democratically elected president. With all sorts of false pretenses pushed by media narratives. Where was your outcry then?

In case you don't know, that's how this politics game is played.



new topics

top topics



 
10

log in

join