Do we still have sedition laws on the books here

[madokie]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/3839805.html

HELENA, Mont. — For casually saying that American troops were "getting a good licking" in France during World War I, a blacksmith named August Lambrecht was imprisoned for seven months in 1919.

After being released, he and his wife fled Montana for fear of being imprisoned again. He died in Portland, Ore., in 1957 _ unable to outrun his conviction for sedition.

It was a black mark his family felt was grossly unfair.

"This is America," said his great-grandson, David Gabriel. "Having freedom of speech and saying what is on your mind doesn't make you a criminal and it shouldn't."

[acmejack]

1. I believe that very law remains on the books.

The Alien and Sedition Act, freedom my eye...

[madokie]

2. So is it time to start to worry, aren't we pretty much guilty of same

considering who is the prez and all.

[Viking12]

3. The Sedition Act of 1918 was repealed in 1921

Although the Act was upheld in US v Schenk, subsequent SCOTUS cases have established precedent that would likely make the Act unenforceable.

[madokie]

4. thank goodness

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. Actually, no

Parts of the Sedition Act remain on the books, including the law for which Schenk was convicted. That specific law can be found in the United States Code, Title 18, section 2388:

-CITE-
18 USC Sec. 2388 01/19/04

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

-HEAD-
Sec. 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war

-STATUTE-
(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or
attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal
of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or
willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the
United States, to the injury of the service or the United States,
or attempts to do so -

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years, or both.

(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of
this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the
object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy
shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).

(c) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is
about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Since you mention Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47 (1919), please note that Schenck was convicted under this law for passing out pamphlets calling the forced conscription into military service a violation of the 13th Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude.

[treestar]

7. The intent is probably for physical action not just citizens voicing

dissent. You have to believe people don't have minds of their own in order to think just arguing a case against a war causes the military not to function.

When the right wing claims you are undermining the troops' mission by talking against the political decision to go to war, I usually taunt them that they are saying the troops are such weak minded people that just hearing of that makes them unable to fight.

These people inherently think you are in the right, because they think as soon as you say something, anyone hearing it will "listen" and then agree. They are conceding right there that they have no argument to oppose you. The only way they can win is if no one hears your argument.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. Physical action such as...

... handing out pamphlets claiming the draft to be a violation of the 13th Amendment? The law, as it stands now, is identical to the one that convicted Schenck almost 90 years ago. It says nothing about physical action only.

[treestar]

9. Maybe they were wrong in his particular case, there is no

stopping these idiots from interpreting it that way. But ultimately if interpreted that way it would necessarily violate the first amendment.

We are in fact not in as bad a shape as during the McCarthy Era when there were many laws blatantly violating the first amendment. Today we protest these laws, in the 1950s the fear of the communists was so great that there was no one who would even protest things much worse.

That's the bright side for the day, anyway. :-)

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. Schenck wasn't the only one convicted under this federal law

There were several hundred, most for doing little more (and often times less) than handing out pamphlets. Schenck was merely the test case that validated the arrest and imprisonment of all the others. And while there were many convictions under this law during the McCarthy era, there were many convictions before as well; witness the fact that Schenck was convicted in 1919.

For not being in as bad a shape as during the McCarthy era because we now protest blatant violations of the First Amendment... maybe I slept through the demonstrations against the Patriot Act and the secret wiretapping? If this law were invoked -- I genuinely fear for Cindy Sheehan -- there is no doubt in my mind that the Current Regime would get a conviction and successfully defend it before the Supreme Court, and that the American people as a whole would just accept it with no protest.

[Viking12]

10. I could have been more explicit...

Although Schenk's conviction was upheld in 1919, it would never stand today. There has been a steady movement towards expanded freedom of speech from the 'bad tendency' standard under which Schenk's convection was upheld to the 'clear and present danger' standard to the 'incitement standard' which established that speech could only be punished if it advocated "imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action" (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969).

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. I will concede that point, however...

The OP asked about sedition laws in general, and whether they were still on the books. Most state sedition laws are gone, and those that still exist are essentially unenforceable because of previous judicial rulings. Federal sedition laws, though, are still around. Whether the federal laws are actually enforceable is something that hasn't been tested in decades, and given the make-up of all three branches of the federal government, now is not the time to test them. And while they remain on the books, they can be used effectively just for the "threat value": "Stop trying to demoralize the troops. We are at war and if you don't shut up, we will charge you with sedition and send you to federal prison for 20 years."

[Viking12]

13. Inquired about sedition laws in general, yes, but..

...then referred to 'speech as sedition' and provided a specific example as a point of inquiry.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. State sedition laws are (mostly) gone; federal sedition laws remain

I believe that state laws have pretty much disappeared, from either federal law superceding them or as a result of court cases. Many of the federal laws remain on the books, though. I cite USC 18 sec. 2388 above; that section is part of Title 18 "Crimes and Criminal Procedure", Chapter 115, "TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES". Other interesting chapters are Chapter 12, "CIVIL DISORDERS", Chapter 67, "MILITARY AND NAVY" (did you know "enticing desertion and harboring deserters" can lead to three years in the federal pen?), Chapter 105 "SABOTAGE", Chapter 113b, "TERRORISM", and Chapter 118, "WAR CRIMES". You might also find chapters 201 - 235 of interest, as they cover the federal judicial system on matters like search and seizure, speedy trials and witnesses.