Free Speech?

I'm trying to find case law on sedition but I'm beginning to have doubts about any current law. Does anyone know if there is a law against sedition at the moment. I believe the sedition law of 1917 was repealed.
 
CFLarsen said:
Because al-Timimi is. What law has he broken?
Click to expand...
I'm trying to find out. I don't decide what is right or wrong and then argue fo 13 pages and refuse to admit that I'm wrong. If he hasn't then I will admit that.
 
Treason

The United States

To avoid the abuses of the English law, treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution. Article Three defines treason as only levying war against the United States or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort," and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction. This safeguard may not be foolproof since Congress could pass a statute creating treason-like offences with different names (such as sedition, bearing arms against the state, etc.) which do not require the testimony of two witnesses, and have a much wider definition than Article Three treason. For example, some well-known spies have generally been convicted of espionage rather than treason. In the United States Code the penalty ranges from "shall suffer death" to "shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
Click to expand...
 
CFLarsen said:
Would it be a good idea to do that before you post?
Click to expand...
No, not really. No one I know is against opinion or speculation as long as the person who does that is willing to alter his or her opinion when better information comes along or is shown to be wrong. It is when one argues for 13 pages and refuses to admit that there is no basis for ones argument that there is a problem.

Thanks for the question but I have no problem admitting that I was wrong. It's called integrity.
 
CFLarsen said:
What is the definition of an "enemy"?
Click to expand...
You really don't know?

en·e·my ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-m)
n.
One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.[/b]
Click to expand...
Jurors in the trial of a prominent Islamic scholar on Tuesday convicted him on 10 counts of encouraging followers in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks to join the Taliban and fight U.S. troops.
Click to expand...
 
CFLarsen said:
What is the definition of an "enemy"?
Click to expand...

Uhhhhhh....

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...those who are swearing by God to murder you?
 
Beerina said:
Uhhhhhh....

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...those who are swearing by God to murder you?
Click to expand...
You know, I prefer your definition. Yeah, when a person makes a commitment to god to kill you, that person could then be construed to be an enemy.
 
Ann Coulter feels hatred towards at least some parts of the US, namely the Muslims (not to speak of the Democrats!). She wants to - forcibly - convert Muslims to Christians and to kill Muslim leaders.

I still don't see why Ann Coulter isn't prosecuted.

I could also ask why American companies who sell non-American products (thereby opposing the interests of the US) are not similarly prosecuted for treason.

There must be something else going on here. "Enemy" can't have that meaning.
 
RandFan said:
You know, I prefer your definition. Yeah, when a person makes a commitment to god to kill you, that person could then be construed to be an enemy.
Click to expand...

Do you think we could agree to use commonly accepted terms, instead of what you think "enemy" means?

If you get to define every word the way you see fit, then honest debate is impossible.
 
CFLarsen said:
Do you think we could agree to use commonly accepted terms, instead of what you think "enemy" means?

If you get to define every word the way you see fit, then honest debate is impossible.
Click to expand...
Does this mean that a person who has promised God to kill you, is not your enemy?


Not that I expect a simple 'yes' or ' no ' answer.. Just thought I would throw this out for the record, since you apparently wish to argue semantics rather than debate honestly.
 
CFLarsen said:
Ann Coulter feels hatred towards at least some parts of the US, namely the Muslims (not to speak of the Democrats!). She wants to - forcibly - convert Muslims to Christians and to kill Muslim leaders.

I still don't see why Ann Coulter isn't prosecuted.
Click to expand...
Really? Are you that obtuse? Coulter was advocating the use of US troops to kick some serious foreign ass. Al-Timimi was convicted of inciting/encouraging people to kick US troop ass. Do you not see the fundamental difference here?
I could also ask why American companies who sell non-American products (thereby opposing the interests of the US) are not similarly prosecuted for treason.
Click to expand...
 You could, but you would look stupid. Not that you don't already, with the Coulter thing, but you might want to stop digging.

Do you not also see a fundamental difference between encouraging people to kill US troops and selling a trinket made in China?
 
Diogenes said:
Does this mean that a person who has promised God to kill you, is not your enemy?

Not that I expect a simple 'yes' or ' no ' answer..
Click to expand...

You shouldn't, because the world is rarely black-or-white. I wouldn't care what reason that person would give to kill me. He would be a threat to me at any rate. My "enemy"? If you want to use that word, sure.

Diogenes said:
Just thought I would throw this out for the record, since you apparently wish to argue semantics rather than debate honestly.
Click to expand...

We cannot have one part of a debate define what the words mean. An "enemy" does not merely mean someone who has promised God to kill someone else.

If whether or not you are an enemy is going to be determined by your religious beliefs, then we are talking about a religious war. Is that the case in Afghanistan?

No? Then the definition of "enemy" doesn't apply here.

Yes? Great... :rolleyes:
 
CFLarsen said:
I still don't see why Ann Coulter isn't prosecuted.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, in the opinion of Michael Sheuer (former head of the CIA station dedicated to bin Laden), this sort of over-heated rhetoric gets air play in the mid-east and negatavely impacts the US in the war on terror.

It's speculation of course, but it's entirely possible that Coulter, from her visible perch, harmed the US more than al-Timimi did.
 
Thanz said:
Really? Are you that obtuse? Coulter was advocating the use of US troops to kick some serious foreign ass. Al-Timimi was convicted of inciting/encouraging people to kick US troop ass. Do you not see the fundamental difference here?
Click to expand...

What, exactly, did al-Timimi say?

Thanz said:
Do you not also see a fundamental difference between encouraging people to kill US troops and selling a trinket made in China?
Click to expand...

Was that what al-Timimi did? How do you know?
 
Diogenes said:
What would she be charged with?
Click to expand...

The same as al-Timimi. Although personally, judging from what we know was said, I can't see why any of them should be prosecuted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom