Treason v Free Speech

[boofhead]

If someone calls for the ousting or destruction of a legitimately elected democratic government while they are serving their term in rule, aren't they guilty of treason? I have a few problems with my current govt, for example, but I recognize that most of my countrymen voted for them, therefore they are in power. So I am not going to actively undermine them. Should the majority not rule? And when is the last time a person has been shot for treason?

What happened to the idea of sedition?

[Blau&Gruen]

It can be a moral obligation to resist sometimes, sometimes it can be morally corrupt to do so. There is no definitive answer to this question. Treason is a very serious crime. What treason is and what not, has to be judged by a not involved instance (like a court). Let's not forget that you cannot exclude that an allegationis is abusive. The treason might be in said case on the side of the abuser.

[Big War Bird]

Treason is taking up arms againt your country or assisting those who do. Peacefully resisting your governmetn is not treason. It might be some other crime, but not treason.

[Blau&Gruen]

If you are in a position to give classified informations to others than those who are named on the document to be permited to receive these informations, you commit under circumstances already a form of treason. You will loose your job in the industry doing so, you might severely punished doing so in a public/national context. But what the OP means goes more in the direction of the discussion about the natural right to resist. This right no one can take you.

[SorelusImperion]

Resistance and opposition against a government wich you consider corrupt is a right wich is essential to a democratic state.

While at times it may seem unreasonable and outright stupid to speak out against the governments actions the right to do it has to be preserved for it is all to easy to create a dictature under the guise of democracy by silencing opposition or discrediting it as un-amer... ups unpatriotic and treasonous.

The example 1930's Germans has already been used a number of times but contemporary Russia would be another one. Albeit not yet a dicature it's current system places it dangerously near to abyss.

While legaly opposition can border treason it does not render it immoral just as much as the July plot against the German government in 1944 was treason but still morally justified.

When it comes to armed resistance though things become a bit more complicated. Is the indidual allowed use force against the government because he feels wronged by it ?
Usually armed resistance is justified (although most probably still "illegal") if the government uses the same degree of force against you for it can be considered self-defense under such circumstances.

In the most cases though civil disobediance will be a sufficient measure as only the most repressive states use the death penalty and mass executions as a tool to keep control of it's population.

[Senno]

No. It absolutely is not treason.

Sedition has largely faded into history as free speech has expanded. Sedition must now be more of an overt act against the government. Not simply speaking out.

[Blau&Gruen]

There is a right to assemble in public and a right to demonstrate in democraties. These are essential civil rights.

How would you define "sedution"? If 3000 farmers come to the parliament with pitchforks and hunt the mps through the streets because their legislation plans will destroy their existence. Is this sedution or a rabiate form of demonstration? It is a difficult quesiton when you know how hard the landfolks work for their bread. Who is right and who is wrong? Difficult question.

[Senno]

There is a right to assemble in public and a right to demonstrate in democraties. These are essential civil rights.

How would you define "sedution"? If 3000 farmers come to the parliament with pitchforks and hunt the mp through the streets because their legislation plans will destroy their existence. Is this sedution or a rabiate form of demonstration?

How overt does their act become? Is anyone "forked"?

[Blau&Gruen]

I have heart some were stitched in their butts. That was 70 years ago. And it is just an example.

[Senno]

Ok, I am unfamiliar with the example. Do you wish a factual answer to your question?

[Blau&Gruen]

Go on! Yes, I am interested in an answer.

[Senno]

Okay. Some basic background. Here's my thoughts already for you on the right to congregate as part of a right to free speech. Obviously I think it is quite important and must be carefully regulated, with a light hand.

How governments balance the right to congregate that is inherent in the right of free speech against those rights of others in society is quite difficult.
----------------

I can't find a link to your incident you specify. Can you provide one?

And was that in wartime? There may be quite a distinction to be made in wartime. Was martial law enforce?

I suppose I will find those answers if you are kind enough to provide a link.

[Simetrical]

Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

. . . so, no. At least not in America, according to the law. Of course, attempting to overthrow the government is illegal, but saying "I wish someone would shoot Bush" does not qualify as attempting to overthrow the government, or at least not very effectually. People who say stuff like that are sore losers, nothing more serious than that. It should only be punishable if they're actually planning on doing something about it (as, for instance, more than a few Communists were at various points), and it only is punishable then.

Of course, speaking on behalf of our enemies too effectively could still qualify, Congress and the courts willing.

[Senno]

Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

We have "layered on" so to speak different laws regarding sedition since the founding. Currently the state of law regarding treason & sedition is expressed in US Code Title 18 Part 1, Section 115, in addition to the Constitutional law you cite.

This code is in addition to the Constitution. And this is the cause of confusion internationally, it seems. When you look directly to the Constitution you see language that seems quite clear, yet is subject to misinterpretation. And you also have to look at U.S. Code. (Municipal Code, which is common law, essentially).

Some people are strict constructionists, and that is usually equated to Conservatism. And it is loosely opposed by those who are "judicial activists" who feel that the Constitution is a "living document" and free to be interpreted with the times.

Even within these theories there are differing schools of thought, so it's hard to generalize. But the above is close enough a generalization for me as to differing judicial schools of thought.

.

. . so, no. At least not in America, according to the law. Of course, attempting to overthrow the government is illegal, but saying "I wish someone would shoot Bush" does not qualify as attempting to overthrow the government, or at least not very effectually. People who say stuff like that are sore losers, nothing more serious than that. It should only be punishable if they're actually planning on doing something about it (as, for instance, more than a few Communists were at various points), and it only is punishable then.

Yes, this is correct I believe. I am looking for an overt act. Whether it's violence, or actively impeding other people's civil rights. Planning that act with the intent to commit probably would qualify. I would need more specifics to judge better. Or a conspiracacy with the intent to commit that act between differnent people or groups. A conspiracy that could be shown to be leading towards an overt act.

It's hard to weigh it out.

Of course, speaking on behalf of our enemies too effectively could still qualify, Congress and the courts willing.

Right now Congress is not willing to legislate further. The code and constitutional law in place stands. The courts will not intervene unless a criminal prosecution or civil action takes place.

Our current social understanding of Free Speech leans more to what I describe above. We look for more of an overt act. And what has been occuring thus far has not been judged to rise to that level, so it's not Sedition quite yet.

This is largely as a consequence of the anti-war movement that became active during the Vietnam war. The law is more liberally applied towards free speech and away from sedition.

[Rush Limbaugh]

I dont know about treason but they certainly have violated the law.

[Simetrical]

But hasn't history shown that if there IS a war with another country, and you go against the initial hype, you're labeled a traitor nonetheless?

Yes, but nobody's talking about that scenario. We're talking about opposing the existing elected government, and whether that's treason. We're not talking about treason or traitors in general.

We have "layered on" so to speak different laws regarding sedition since the founding. Currently the state of law regarding treason & sedition is expressed in US Code Title 18 Part 1, Section 115, in addition to the Constitutional law you cite.

The Constitution limits what can be considered treason, and the law seems to echo its wording exactly. Of course, sedition is another matter, legally.

I dont know about treason but they certainly have violated the law.

Who has?

[Thanatos]

I believe this quote is relevant.

Herman Göring (Field Marshall General):

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

[Simetrical]

Not really. Nobody was talking about warring on other countries. The discussion was about rebelling against your own country.

[Thanatos]

Not really. Nobody was talking about warring on other countries. The discussion was about rebelling against your own country.

But hasn't history shown that if there IS a war with another country, and you go against the initial hype, you're labeled a traitor nonetheless?

[Exarch]

If someone calls for the ousting or destruction of a legitimately elected democratic government while they are serving their term in rule, aren't they guilty of treason? I have a few problems with my current govt, for example, but I recognize that most of my countrymen voted for them, therefore they are in power. So I am not going to actively undermine them. Should the majority not rule? And when is the last time a person has been shot for treason?

What happened to the idea of sedition?

Boofhead
we have a sedition law because of a liberal gov.