Sedition vs. Treason
 

Sedition: Conduct which is directedagainst a government and which tends toward insurrection but does not amount to treason.

Treason: Consists of levying war against the United States or of adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Distinction: Sedition's ultimate objective is a violation of public peace, yet does not aim at direct and open violence against the laws, or the subversion of the Constitution


www.lectlaw.com

So, if there are Imams and Mullahs preaching "jihad" in American Mosques, would they be guilty of one or both? Do similar laws exist in Great Britain? If so, why are they not applied?

Yes they would, as they are here too. Sadly, unless it is completely out of hand, a blind eye is turned.

There is a difference between off-handedly saying "someone should kill the infidels" and telling a group of people, whom one could reasonably expect to do this, that it is their mission to wipe the infidels from the earth.

Yes, I'm sure you tightie-righties would love to slap 'sedition' charges on anyone who questions el Fuhrer. Sig heil, y'all!


It's "der Furher", Thom.

I reckon y'all didn' get the Texas joke, ya hear?

That's OK - I'll type slower next time :)

I'll try to watch your fingers next time.

Re: Sedition vs. Treason
 

this one also confuses me.

If someone pays $ for a contract murder he is charged. What's the difference if a Mullah pays the murderer in "beliefs" ?

If it was the grand poobah of the klan or arian nations preaching that kind of hatred they would find a way to shut them down. Oh wait - they already have...

An interesting question on one of the "news" tal shows:

"What is the difference between a black hooded terrorist in the middle east and a white hooded terrorist in the American South?

Jeff you make a good point. Is it just the government trying to be "PC" that keeps them from prosecuting some of these individuals spewing hate?

Seditious speech is constitutionally protected. One may spew hate all day long, but one cannot incite violence. There is a fine line.

So, if a preacher suggests an act of hate and a follower carries it out, it is no longer just sedition, or is it?

Sedition, as I understand it, really only applies to speech about the government. Hate speech is a different thing. Things get fuzzy if a preacher says to his congregation, "Leave this house of god, go forth and eliminate all women of Polish descent, god wants you to do it." If a state has a law prohibiting "hate speech", it cannot punish those who simply advocate violence. The law must be restricted so that it only punishes those who actually incite violence. A pretty fine line. This is my understanding of the Supreme Court cases on the 1st Amendment, but I am not a constitutional law attorney.

One can advocate violent overthrow of the government, but one can't incite people to go out and do it right now. Weird.