Are some ATS members guilty of Sedition?

While I was doing some research of federal crimes for a project I am working on I came across the Federal crime of "sedition".

This caught my eye because the definition of the crime seems to encompass the intent of several posts I've seen here on ATS.

Definitions:

Sedition is a term of law which refers to overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition......Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power....Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state,

en.wikipedia.org...

Now as it relates to ATS: Admittedly there is a great deal of mistrust of the government by members of ATS. That is generally why many are drawn to sites like this. It is not uncommon to see posts accusing the President or other politicians of all manner of crimes against the people and even against humanity. There have been countless posts accusing the PTB of orchestrating 911, Katrina....and countless other catastrophes. Some accusing the government of purposely poising people by means of chem-trails, chemicals in food, and even using mind control techniques.

My question is this: When does free speech become sedition? Some seem to openly advocate a overthrow (violent if necessary) of the current government.

According to the definition, sedition may even include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. This can take the form of writing as in the example of Laura Berg, a nurse at a United States Department of Veterans Affairs-run hospital in New Mexico was investigated for sedition in September 2005 after writing a letter to the editor of a local newspaper, accusing several national leaders of criminal negligence.
Fortunately for her the charges were eventually dropped.


Is anyone concerned that the line between free speech and Sedition has been crossed by many of the more passionate posters on this and other websites, (who happen to be US citizens) that seem to desire and advocate rebellion against the US government?

I worry that some day the liberating anonymity so many seem to enjoy here will vanish and the free wheeling posts advocating revolution will come back to bite them.

I welcome your thoughts and comments.

Defend yourselves from the tyranny of oppresive government.

There are no rules in war.

If a US citizen considers themselves "at war" with the government due to ideological reasons or even due to perceived crimes committed by elected officials does this not constitute sedition?

Consider the case of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, a blind Egyptian cleric living in New Jersey, and nine co-defendants on charges of seditious conspiracy

The defendants committed no overt acts of war, but all were found to have taken substantial steps toward carrying out a plot to levy war against the United States. The government did not have sufficient evidence that Rahman participated in the actual plotting against the government or any other activities to prepare for terrorism.

He was instead prosecuted for providing religious encouragement to his co-conspirators. Rahman argued that he only performed the function of a cleric and advised followers about the rules of Islam. He and the others were convicted, and on January 17, 1996, Rahman was sentenced to life imprisonment by Judge Michael Mukasey.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

I fear that many here have openly advocated revolution or rebellion, though perhaps not to the extent the cleric or his companions did.

At this point in time, the charge of sedition has been used only rarely here in the US. My concern is that one day the definition will be expanded to cover what the government may consider "hate speech" against a sitting administration.


[edit on 9/9/2009 by Sparky63]

reply to post by Sparky63


Sedition to terrorism is nothing short of everyone's patriotic duty to uphold the constitution of the Republic.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4697507b7591.jpg[/atsimg]

Watch this speech by Arundhati Roy for some inspiration for your research:

Google Video Link

www.weroy.org...



[edit on 9-9-2009 by warrenb]

reply to post by Sparky63


Sorry to say this but our constitution protect citizens from government oppression and tyranny.

So whatever definition the government is tagging to call protested against the government it can be seen by the people as tyranny and oppression.

I guess let see wish one stand under the supreme court, after all the supreme court will side with constitutional definition most of the time.



[edit on 9-9-2009 by marg6043]

For anyone to use should someone come after you for expressing your opinion:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/deb4e6f21213.png[/atsimg]

...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

www.ushistory.org...

Sedition assumes that the majority of the people are happy with their government.

The Declaration of Independence was in itself Sedition at the highest level.

Sedition in itself completely contradicts the right to Freedom of Speech.

Sedition is happening all over, to the point now that trying to prosecute for it would mean putting at least a third of the population behind bars or put to death. And you wonder why all the FEMA camps and military ads for "internment specialists?"

Are many ATS members guilty of it? You better believe it. The problem is they have every reason to be at this point. This crowd is growing, not diminishing. And at an alarming rate. They know this, and are taking steps to counter it. The internet is the last vestige of communication, and I believe the only reason they haven't done away with it or control it profusely yet is they know what will happen. That will be the final straw, tripping revolution switches all over, as the last mouth is silenced and cut off from the rest of the comfort that comes with knowing others are feeling the same way. Divide and conquer.

But they won't do it until they're totally ready. There is an unseen race against time here, which they are slowly losing. Can they cut it off safely before critical mass is reached?

reply to post by schrodingers dog

While I agree with sentiments expressed in your post, I fear that in reality many will not get the chance to even offer such a defense.

I relish free speech as much as the next guy and I wholeheartedly advocate it. I do not believe that all politicians value it as highly as we do. If enemy lists are prepared, or calls for reporting your neighbors critical comments or questionable emails for example are further encouraged, it would not be a great leap (in my opinion) to see the right of free speech restricted.

As the world becomes a more dangerous place I fear that governments will come to view harsh criticism as unpatriotic and seditious in nature.
There seem to be harbingers of that now with the warrantless wiretapping and other invasions into our privacy.

reply to post by warrenb


I look forward to watching the video when I get off of work. Thanks for including it.

If they have swimming, boating, archery, and making those stupid clay ashtrays, in these FEMA camps, then call me a seditionist!

Originally posted by Sparky63
reply to post by schrodingers dog

 

While I agree with sentiments expressed in your post, I fear that in reality many will not get the chance to even offer such a defense.

I know S, truly I do ... that was just an empty token of resistance.

In reality you are correct that governments in general will always do the most to exert and retain control over their populace. We can fight it in the courts, we can fight it by exposing the conspiracies ... but much like a casino, time and the odds are against us. They don't come with a hammer they come with an egg spoon slowly and methodically over generations eroding individual rights away until there are none left.

As far as sedition on ATS ... the laws in the US are quite clear on that (at least for now), and ATS staff has a pretty good handle on what is or isn't over the line. So we say what we say, aware of the knowledge that anyone can read it, and take our chances.

What is the alternative?

reply to post by Sparky63


I really don't see that what you are implying really pinpoints any ATS members Sparky 63.

Here is what you copied:

"Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority."

I don't see subversion of our Constitution by any of the members of ATS. All of the ATS members STAND BY OUR CONSTITUTION and want to pass it along to our offspring and others.

I don't see any incitement of discontent to lawful authority. Quite the contrary, I see members of ATS making sure authorities in power STAY LAWFUL, and that any and all authorities whom are not lawful be EXPOSED AS NOT BEING LAWFUL.

In other words ATS members are here to PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION LAWFULLY and to keep LAWFUL AUTHORITIES IN POWER and evict UNLAWFUL AUTHORITIES out of power legally.

Originally posted by marg6043


Sorry to say this but our constitution protect citizens from government oppression and tyranny.

I would say that the Constitution protects some of the citizens (perhaps most) from government oppression & tyranny. Many though slip through the cracks and are not afforded the protection we all expect. Will there come a time when some are arrested and not given the chance to legally defend themselves? I think we have already seen that with the definition of "enemy combatants".

Whether or not the government is already abusing that power is a frequent matter of discussion here on ATS. Some are content to believe that the Government is inherently good and just and that any violations of our "rights" is an oversight that will eventually be corrected, while others are convinced that the government willfully & criminally violates these "rights' on an ever increasing scale.

Sedition is still on the books and is still a Federal crime. As far as I can tell the very nature of sedition & free speech conflict with each other.

[edit on 9/9/2009 by Sparky63]

reply to post by Sparky63


Just remember that the United States Government is a business run by central banking.

The interests of the central bankers do not necesarily represent the interests of the American People.

Quite the opposite really.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Sparky63

 

Sorry to say this but our constitution protect citizens from government oppression and tyranny.

So whatever definition the government is tagging to call protested against the government it can be seen by the people as tyranny and oppression.

I guess let see wish one stand under the supreme court, after all the supreme court will side with constitutional definition most of the time.



[edit on 9-9-2009 by marg6043]

No it does not. The constitution protects politicians and the government more than it does the people. Read it again. It does not allow for the people to rise up against the government. See thread below.

So you want a rebellion? You can't.. The constitution says so.

The discussion in the above thread is quite complex and covers the complexity of what so many think to be an open and shut case. It's worth the read.

reply to post by RussianScientists


Don't get me wrong, I am not accusing any ATS members of outright sedition. I am concerned with the trend of governments to violate the right of free speech and for the courts to change the interpretation of it.

If sedition can take the form of written advocacy of rebellion against what some may consider an oppressive government, many are perilously close to this charge.

The catch 22 is when you depend on a constitution to insure your rights, but the very agency in place to apply the constitution and thus enforce those rights suddenly considers you an enemy of the state. As we have seen it has the option of classifying you in such a way as to remove your rights for normal defense.

I hope I am not too obtuse. I am still struggling with the parameters of the definition of "sedition".

What is interesting is that Sedition seems to occupy the nether world between free speech and treason. Perhaps this is why it is so rarely charged.

According to one sites explanation

sedition is regarded as falling one step short of the more serious crime of treason.

www.citizenwarrior.com...

What I find interesting is that the so many consider the duty of all patriots to be ready to resist if the duly elected government becomes oppressive and fails to uphold its responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens, yet the government keeps a law on the books designed to prevent that from happening.

I am not a lawyer but I still find this fascinating.

reply to post by LeaderOfProgress


Thanks for the link. That thread had a lot of interesting information.
Very thought provoking.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Hey! I want one of those unabridged versions of the Constitution!


reply to post by Sparky63

There seem to be harbingers of that now with the warrantless wiretapping and other invasions into our privacy.

Case in the news this week...an apartment management company is suing a woman who entered disparaging remarks in a blog about the (lack of) cleanliness of the building. The woman had entered the remarks as ANON but the ISP was somehow convinced to release her real name.

reply to post by LeaderOfProgress


Many of the phrases in the the Constitution are somewhat vague, and open to interpretation...

But it really matters not how the Constitution is interpreted, or by who...we, as Americans, have the right to, if enough of us deem it necessary, replace the govt. which the Constitution founded. Not saying it would be, or will be, easy...it won't be.

Eventually, enough will become enough, for even the sleepiest of us...then things will change. For the better? Who knows? I sure don't, my crystal ball is broken... But if we keep headed where it looks like we're headed...a govt. that is of...by...and for...itself. We've all, or most of us, come to a realization, however reluctantly, that something drastic may be necessary to remind those who would rule us, that it is we, those great unwashed masses they so dispise, who have the power. We just need to reming ourselves of that.

OK. I'll step down from the soapbox now...someone else can have a go.