Did you know hat DU and other blogs can be charged

[dixiegrrrrl]

for violating this law, enacted Jan. 2009?

Technically, Skinner can be charged if any DU member types the wrong words,
such as " I think it is a good idea to___________ the government"..


TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2385

§ 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years , or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.



link to law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002385----000-.html

[upi402]

1. Can we shield DU with sig line qualifiers?

I'd be glad to change mine, "My posts are in jest and an expression of creativity"

[villager]

2. So why is "Free" "Republic" still in business?

Or was this set up for the usual "selective" prosecutions?

[G_j]

8. or Michele Bachmann for that matter nt

[tekisui]

3. "...with intent to cause.."

Skinner doesn't have that intent, and it is evidenced by DU's moderation. DU has a long history of deleting such posts, and banning posters.

[dixiegrrrrl]

22. thatt "intent" thing..always a burden of proof issue

which can go either way.
Prosecutors job entails adding 2 +2 = intent.
So while you may not have "intended" to cause a stampede, there is that pesky "crying fire in a theater"
law. which says you are to blame. ie: You"should have known".

This law strikes me as designed for selective enforcement.

[NoNothing]

4. Technically yes, practically no

Almost all convictions under this statute have been ruled unconstitutional. Congress simply has never gotten around to striking it from the U.S. Code. It's a quirk of procedure that laws declared unconstitutional are not automatically stricken from the books - they simply become unenforceable.

EDIT: Also a major error in summary, this law was passed in the 40's I believe, not last year.

[Individualist]

5. So quoting the Declaration of Independence is a crime now

:crazy:

[upi402]

6. "It's just a piece of paper" -W n/t

[TheWatcher]

12. No, It's just a Goddamn Piece Of Paper.

Get it right upi.

Context Matters. ;)

[upi402]

18. Forgot he was Christian

helicopter ROFLMAO

[timtom]

30. No, that's the Constitution.

The DOI is a terrorist document.

[TheWatcher]

38. ::Slaps Forehead:: THAT'S RIGHT! I keep forgetting!

So the Forefathers were the Original American Al Qaeda.

Now would that make The Fat George Washington or the Skinny George Washington the head terrorist?

Oh, wait they couldn't make fake tapes back then, could they?

However did they Propagandize the British then, without aid of Photoshop and Adobe Director?

[timtom]

39. The sad thing is

almost 20% of the white male population, in 1775, were loyalists. A similar number of "loyalists" to Shrub.

Loved the Fat George Washington/Skinny George Washington comment.

[Subdivisions]

19. Hmmm.... Let's find out...

Declaration of Independence

The Unanimous Declaration
of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 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 to 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton



There. I even redded the juicy part that, according to the law cited in the OP, could get my ass arrested. Oh, and by the way Agent Mike, those people listed at the bottom of that text? They are what is know as "founding fathers". FOUNDING fathers. You know, the people who FOUNDED this nation? Making http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/scan.htm">this our FOUNDING document, the FOUNDATION OF OUR NATION!

Now, I await the stormtroopers.

[jdlh8894]

7. Don't think my printer could handle that n/t

[paulsby]

9. not really. this is the problem when laymen try to interpret law

read it again

whoever, WITH INTENT TO ... cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government,

publicly displays...

you have to meet ALL elements of the crime. legal analysis 101

it's not enough merely to display X

you must display WITH INTENT TO... cause the overthrow etc.

try reading more carefully next time

hth

there are also numerous cases etc. that establish case law etc. that go a bit beyond this, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion

start with the brandenberg standard for instance...

[TheWatcher]

10. Stop Being Alarmist. It's all part of "The New Freedom."

Why Do You Hate America?

:sarcasm:

[Echo In Light]

16. lol

[Ozymanithrax]

11. "overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force"

First, just talking a little treason is acceptable under the Constitution of the United States. If it weren't, Free Republic would have been rolled up and most of it's members sent to Gitmo as would Governor Perry and other secessionist. Nobody is going after any of these people who have advocated the destruction of the United States.

You would need to do something other than write something stupid. Besides, openly advocating a movement to overthrow the United States by violence would probably get you tombstoned.

While Bush was President, I strongly advocated overthrowing the government by election.

[TheWatcher]

14. "While Bush was President, I strongly advocated overthrowing the government by election."

That's a bit hard to do when the Elections themselves are frauds.

[Ozymanithrax]

37. As a vetaran, I prefer ballots to bullets.

Though there are people here who actually thought Bush wouldn't leave, that he would somehow hold on to power, he left.

I don't think people need to worry that vocally opposing the government is going to get them tombstoned by the Federal Government.

[RandomThoughts]

13. Thats interesting.

So then post advocating bills that strip constitutional rights, like done during Bush years, mean those posters or governmental officials should be put on trial. Or posts that defend actions that try to remove the USA by removing democracy, again that would fit into that law.

Someone get that information to the justice department.


I would guess that is used as target justice considering some of the posts on free republic. Although the concept of Prosecutor's discretion has bearing on that.



I don't believe in violence, but they really should also define the word force, since in a situation where the government was not the government of any part of the united states, the use of Jedi Force could be applicable, in certain cases such as 'right to revolution', or non sanctioned governmental bodies like corporate governance, such Jedi force actions could be advocated.

[Echo In Light]

15. Isn't that along the same lines as Fifth Columns?

Remember this?

Bush's Mysterious 'New Programs'
By Nat Parry
February 21, 2006


Not that George W. Bush needs much encouragement, but Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a new target for the administration’s domestic operations -- Fifth Columnists, supposedly disloyal Americans who sympathize and collaborate with the enemy.

“The administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue Fifth Column movements,” Graham, R-S.C., told Gonzales during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Feb. 6.

“I stand by this President’s ability, inherent to being Commander in Chief, to find out about Fifth Column movements, and I don’t think you need a warrant to do that,” Graham added, volunteering to work with the administration to draft guidelines for how best to neutralize this alleged threat.

“Senator,” a smiling Gonzales responded, “the President already said we’d be happy to listen to your ideas.”

In less paranoid times, Graham’s comments might be viewed by many Americans as a Republican trying to have it both ways – ingratiating himself to an administration of his own party while seeking some credit from Washington centrists for suggesting Congress should have at least a tiny say in how Bush runs the War on Terror.

But recent developments suggest that the Bush administration may already be contemplating what to do with Americans who are deemed insufficiently loyal or who disseminate information that may be considered helpful to the enemy.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/022106a.html

[NoPasaran]

17. "I think it is a good idea to exfoliate the government"

If this be treason, make the most of it.

[Ignis]

23. I was going to go with "defenestrate," but I like yours.

:thumbsup:

[Occulus]

24. Now *there's* a word not used in ordinary conversation

Sears Tower, Empire State Building, or Chrysler Building?

[Ignis]

33. Oh, tough call. Perhaps one for each branch? (nt)

[fatbuckel]

20. Can we apply that to repubs....

they say some treasonous things..

[DirkGently]

21. Yes, intent is the trick

But I have to disagree with the idea that this is an outmoded restriction the courts just haven't gotten around to striking down. It's long been a bright - line limit of free speech. Advocating violence of any kind, with the intent to actually bring it about, is generally a crime.

I do think there is a startling inequity as to how the idea is applied to liberal vs. conservative speakers. Glenn Beck, anyone? Remember the entire show full of "experts" waxing hopefully about "tax riots" and (I'm not making this up) "motorcycle marauders" who were coming, because Obama had, two weeks into his first term, just pushed the common man too far, apparently by threatening to do away with Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy? Beck himself contemplated hopefully about scenarious where local law enforcement would take up arms against federal authorities.

Meanwhile, a "Buck Fush" T-shirt was enough to get you handcuffed and dragged away from a Bush speech.

Somehow, the assumption still sticks: If you're an angry, violent, threatening white guy with a buzzcut and a firearm "lawfully" strapped to your hip, you're a patriot. Pink-clad protestor disrupting recruitment for Iraq with a wig and a funny sign?

Off with their treasonous heads, of course.

[NoNothing]

25. Pretty much 100% wrong

Avocating violence even with the intent to bring it about is 100% protected speech, so long as the violence it brings about is not *imminent*. This is where the "clear and present danger" doctrine comes from. You can advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S. as much as you want, and even intend that people do so, eventually. It is only when you are advocating it in a situation where people are likely to actually go and cause violence right after hearing you that you cross the line.

Also, getting removed from a speech is not an example of government censorship since those are nearly always private events.

[dixiegrrrrl]

27. A Presidential sppech is a private event?

Huh...who knew?
Tv covers them like they are news.
You wanna tell them, or shall I?

[DirkGently]

29. 100% Clueless

Sorry, but you don't understand the hairs you're attempting to split. First, there's no imminence requirement in the laws against advocating violent revolt, so you're dead wrong there. Although, again, if you don't really understand what you're talking about, that could be confusing I guess.

Imminence is an element the S.C. uses in First Amendment tests yes, but in practice it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Most attempts to actually incite violence are "imminent" enough. Try publicly organizing a meeting for the purpose of murdering a public official "next year sometime" or without mentioning any time frame at all and see what happens if you think that.

And my point about people being dragged from Bush speeches (which, as noted elsewhere, were generally not private functions) was a larger one dealing with the attitude among conservatives that any type of left-leaning noisemaking is dangerous, subversive, and disloyal, while at the first sign of not getting what they want, they're galloping right up to the line of legality in terms of advocating violence. Had any liberal pundit fantasized openly about armed showdowns with the government the way Beck, et al have done, the cries for prosecution would have been overwhelming.

So it's great that you understand that censorship is something undertaken by the government, but it's irrelevant here.

[NoNothing]

34. There's no imminence requirement?

How do you square this view with Brandenburg?

"These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. 2 As we <395 U.S. 444, 448> said in Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290, 297 -298 (1961), 'the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.' See also Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 259 -261 (1937); Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 134 (1966)."

AND: Campaign events are run by the campaign, which is in fact a private organization and not an arm of the government. Private events do not become public events simply because a public official speaks at them.

EDIT: I see perhaps you are making a distinction between the laws as on the books (irrelevant, really) vs. what the court will permit enforcement of (the meaningful part). The bottom line is imminence *is* a requirement. Also, please note that "organizing a meeting for the purpose of murdering a public official" is a much different act than "organizing a meeting for the purpose of advocating the murder of a public official." I trust you can see the difference. Advocacy of such is legal; conspiring to do it is not.

[The Magistrate]

26. This Is The Old 'Smith Act', Ma'am, Dating Back To The Early Forties

Were it properly applied, much of the tea-bagger crowd could be swept up into Leavenworth or Marion....

[dixiegrrrrl]

31. Thank you, Magisrate.

The comments were certainly interesting.

[tabbycat31]

28. I think FR should be charged

[laughingliberal]

32. I did know that. nt

[aroach]

35. Uh oh

A good friend of mine owns the domain name, OverthrowTheGovernment.org. I haven't talked to him lately. Hope he's not in jail.

[dem mba]

36. hyperbole much?

"overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence".


The Supreme Court already ruled on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

The doctrine states that speech that will cause, or has as its purpose, "imminent lawless action" (such as a riot) does not have constitutional protection. As of 2009, "imminent lawless action" continues to be the test applied in free speech cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Finally, Douglas dealt with the classic example of a man "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." In order to explain why someone could be legitimately prosecuted for this, Douglas called it an example in which "speech is brigaded with action." In the view of Douglas and Black, this was probably the only sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech.