NBS: Time’s Klein: Beck, Palin Potentially Committing Sedition

[Destino]

Funny how the liberals were all traitors, anti-American, and guilty of sedition when Bush was in office. Far more extremist rhetoric now is just political speech. Personally I don't think they've crossed the line yet. If they ever advocate violence directly they should be jailed immediately and their supporters placed on a terrorist watch list immediately.

Speaking of crossing the line, isn't there a tea party on the anniversary of the OKC Bombing today? Lovely.

[Larry]

Wow.

I thought only the GOP was stupid and egotistical enough to try to make this kind of claim.

[daveakl]

JMS: I am confused as to why you think what they are saying is seditious.

Are they telling people to start a insurrection?

[Predicto]

So Palin would have to say something like "don't retreat reload"?

"Obama is a terrorist who planned his political career with someone who planted bombs in the Pentagon?" "He's a terrorist", "a trader", and "communist".

Sedition isn't about telling people to go kill somebody. It's about whipping up the crowd to go do something.

Yep. But the connection between the words and the violent actions has to be really, really, reaaaaaaaaaaly close, or else you are chilling legitimate political speech.

I think Palin and Beck are reprehesible asshats who are harming our civil discourse, but I do not think that their actions are even close to the line of sedition.

[Oldskool]

It's treason when the left has the House/Senate/White House and doesn't like the fact that pundits are bashing them for what they are doing.

So the question is, when did descent become separate from the 1st amendment? I am an extreme supporter of the 1st amendment and this reeks of authoritarianism.

[Destino]

It's treason when the left has the House/Senate/White House and doesn't like the fact that pundits are bashing them for what they are doing.

So the question is, when did descent become separate from the 1st amendment? I am an extreme supporter of the 1st amendment and this reeks of authoritarianism.

where were you during the 8 years of the Bush administration? This claim was pretty routine during that time. If you look in this thread all the left wingers aren't supporting this claim. I don't remember that being the case years ago when the left was being accused of treason constantly.

[JMS]

Wow.

I thought only the GOP was stupid and egotistical enough to try to make this kind of claim.

I don't think it's stupid or egotistical... clearly the secret service which has investigated threats at Palin rallies before doesn't find it "stupid"...

Here is the thing.... Of our last 13 Presidents, 12 have had attempts on their lives. Since Roosevelt, only Eisenhower has not had an attempt made on his person. Several Presidents have had multiple attempts. People spraying the white house with automatic weapons fire, one person crashed a plane into the whitehouse, and several folks took shots at the President during public appearances. We've never had such an attempt coming from a political movement which enjoyed regular national press. We've never seen a main stream politicla movement where it's followers regularly experessed or called for violence against the opposition leader.... Not in the Modern history of the country.

We've never had regular press conferences telivised with the type of rhetoric we've been hearing from the right. Press confrencess where people regularly show up hanging mock ups of our elected leaders, often calling for their death, or violence against them...

Secret Service protection being extended to the speaker of the house, the majority leader; even the supreme court justices calling for protection details.

Is it really the property of a liberal democracy to give these guys a free hand to spew this hate speach? Should a wing nut really be allowed to fester under the cloak of freedom of speach? Isn't it reasonable for political dessent to be restricted towards somebodies policies, rather than their person.

If one of these wing nuts does take a shot at Obama, and reverses a national election, something which has happened in other countries relatively recently... would that still make me stupid and egotistical for calling it out in advance?

Would it really weaken Pallin's position if she were forced to accurately portray facts in her speach, or refrain from gun metaphores? Same goes for Beck and Limbaugh... Let them fault the opositions policies, not lead personal attacks on the man himself.

[Larry]

I am an extreme supporter of the 1st amendment and this reeks of authoritarianism.

It's authoritarianism when the government begins prosecuting people for disagreeing.

When some reporter says it, then it's just partisan, pandering, and stupid.

[Destino]

It's authoritarianism when the government begins prosecuting people for disagreeing.

No Larry. It's authoritarianism when a liberal does it.

[Predicto]

Would it really weaken Pallin's position if she were forced to accurately portray facts in her speach, or refrain from gun metaphores? Same goes for Beck and Limbaugh... Let them fault the opositions policies, not lead personal attacks on the man himself.

Who would be the judge of whether what she said was accurate? Who would be the judge of whether something was a personal attack?

The First Amendment forbids this, and rightfully so. As long as they stay on the other side of the line from directly inciting specific violence right here, right now, they are entltled to say what they want.

Hopefully, the remedy will come when extremeists offend the public with their antics and lose more elections.

[JMS]

Yep. But the connection between the words and the violent actions has to be really, really, reaaaaaaaaaaly close, or else you are chilling legitimate political speech.

Reaaaaaaaaaly close.... Like having someone yell out from the crowd; "Kill Him", or "off with his head" when Palin delivers her diatribe on several different ocassions?

I think Palin and Beck are reprehesible asshats who are harming our civil discourse, but I do not think that their actions are even close to the line of sedition.

If some whack a doodle takes a shot or murders the President would you then change your mind?

I'm advocating a new policy because I think it's a relatively new thing for a main stream American poliitcal party to be opennly inciting violence against the President of the United States.....

There must be a way to allow legitamate dessent, while making it a crime to incite a crowd to violence.

[visionary]

Reaaaaaaaaaly close.... Like having someone yell out from the crowd; Kill Him, or off with his head when Palin delivers her diatribe on several different ocassions?

This thread is ridiculous.

:ols:

People said just as bad things about Bush all the time during his presidency. Some of those anti-war rallies were pretty hate-filled.

That said, it wasn't treason or sedition then (except maybe for the really violent protests) and it isn't now.

[JMS]

Who would be the judge of whether what she said was accurate? Who would be the judge of whether something was a personal attack?

I think we have laws today where the truth of the charge is the difference between a crime or protected speech. Likewise the difference between art and smut, is much more neuanced than the difference between a personal attack and an attack on one's policies.

The First Amendment forbids this, and rightfully so. As long as they stay on the other side of the line from directly inciting specific violence right here, right now, they are entltled to say what they want.

The first ammendment is not a blanket liscense to say anything about anybody any time. We do have sedition laws, liable laws, slander laws, and other laws against speach which would endanger the public safety, like fire in an crowded movie theatre.

Hopefully, the remedy will come when extremeists offend the public with their antics and lose more elections.

Hopefully the "remedy" won't be the life of the President or another government official.

[Predicto]

Reaaaaaaaaaly close.... Like having someone yell out from the crowd; "Kill Him", or "off with his head" when Palin delivers her diatribe on several different ocassions?

No. Like having PALIN yell "kill him" from the stage.

If some whack a doodle takes a shot or murders the President would you then change your mind?

Nope.

I'm advocating a new policy because I think it's a relatively new thing for a main stream American poliitcal party to be opennly inciting violence against the President of the United States.....

There must be a way to allow legitamate dessent, while making it a crime to incite a crowd to violence.

The current rules we have have worked pretty well for a long, long time. Freedom does not come without its share of conflict and chaos, but the long term payoff is always worth it.

[karmacop]

Reaaaaaaaaaly close.... Like having someone yell out from the crowd; "Kill Him", or "off with his head" when Palin delivers her diatribe on several different ocassions?

If some whack a doodle takes a shot or murders the President would you then change your mind?

I'm advocating a new policy because I think it's a relatively new thing for a main stream American poliitcal party to be opennly inciting violence against the President of the United States.....

There must be a way to allow legitamate dessent, while making it a crime to incite a crowd to violence.

Someone in the crowd yelling something is different from Palin and Beck yelling it. Unless and until Palin and Beck actively encourage their crowds to kill someone, with malicious intent (i.e., intending that the crowd will kill someone), then it's not even close to sedition.

Sedition prosecutions have been used very sparingly throughout our history. In recent times, it has been used against terrorists for the most part, like for the attempted 1993 WTC bombing and just last month for those members of the Michigan Christian militia. It's that level of intended violence against the government that sedition was meant to address.

[Predicto]

The first ammendment is not a blanket liscense to say anything about anybody any time. We do have sedition laws, liable laws, slander laws, and other laws against speach which would endanger the public safety, like fire in an crowded movie theatre.

Yep. And none of those apply here.

[JMS]

This thread is ridiculous.

:ols:

People said just as bad things about Bush all the time during his presidency. Some of those anti-war rallies were pretty hate-filled.

That said, it wasn't treason or sedition then (except maybe for the really violent protests) and it isn't now.

Please give me a single link which documents someone yelling "Kill Him" at a democratic Rally... Just one.... I've provided half a dozen such links at GOP or tea party rallies...

Like I said, these aren't isolated events. These are common, as is the rhetoric which inspires these statements.

You know why Hittler came to power? It wasn't because he had popular political support, or because he was elected. No. It's because the government in power was too weak to protect itself from fanatics. Fanatics is what we are dealing with hear. Fanatics who are calling for the overturning of an election using violence. Fanatics who are getting spun up by folks who are getting very well paid to spew this venomous rhetoric.

Are we stronger than the Weimar Republic? It's unclear.

[Redskins Diehard]

No Larry. It's authoritarianism when a liberal does it.

There were plenty of people bemoaning the poor Dixie Chicks losing their first amendment rights because private radio stations stopped playing their music when they spoke out against Bush.

I find it interesting that people think that this is a new phenomena.

[daveakl]

JMS: I think you missed this question:

I am confused as to why you think what they are saying is seditious.

Are they telling people to start a insurrection?

[Teller]

No Larry. It's authoritarianism when a liberal does it.

*sniff*

[JMS]

Yep. And none of those apply here.

Well that's a different line of reasoning, than the one you first introduced.

Clearly Sedition does apply to someone who yells out "kill him" at the political opposition rally of the president of the United States..... That's a crime, impunishable by jail time... It's a crime which the secret service investigates and will prosecute.

The question is, is it sedition if that type of statement is made by numerous otherwise unrelated people in response to the same type of rhetoric coming from a speaker....

By websters definition of sedition it is... Inciting violence or civil unrest is sedition, regardless of whether such unrest has been allowed to occur.

Here is another question for you.

Does a country so weak that it can not protect it's elected officials deserve to survive? In the face of a political movement which regularly calls for the violent overthrow of the Elected Governemnt, isn't it incombent upon any government to respond and safeguard it's leaders? The Weimar republic failed this test... will we.

[Jumbo]

When does political desent become sedition?

When one political hack cries about what another political hack is doing.

In the tailgate, that's not sedition, it's tradition.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[JimboDaMan]

JMS: I think you missed this question:

I am confused as to why you think what they are saying is seditious.

Are they telling people to start a insurrection?

Have you read the thread? Beck and Palin are unquestionably seditious according to the dictionary definition he provided at the top. They have absolutely incited discontent with the Obama administration, and that qualifies as sedition.

But the legal definition of the crime of sedition has a much stricter standard. Thankfully, because otherwise this board would be a pretty lonely place.

[Henry]

Funny how the liberals were all traitors, anti-American, and guilty of sedition when Bush was in office. Far more extremist rhetoric now is just political speech. Personally I don't think they've crossed the line yet. If they ever advocate violence directly they should be jailed immediately and their supporters placed on a terrorist watch list immediately.

Destino, not to get all right-wing on you but from my moderate viewpoint I've also noticed that 'dissent is the highest form of patriotism' has suddenly become 'potentially committing sedition' from those on the left.

I don't see either side being particularly consistent on this one.

[JimboDaMan]

In the tailgate, that's not sedition, it's tradition.

Hah, Jumbo pretty much nailed it.