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

[Larry]

You said they've "incited discontent with the administration."

As if the frustration with Obama didn't start until they pushed the buttons.

Pointing out that it's impossible to argue for or against the theory that "the frustration with Obama didn't start until they pushed the buttons", since "they" haven't stopped "pushing the buttons" for over a decade.

:halo:

[daveakl]

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.

Sedition is not just "inciting discontent" though. Show me how there has been a promotion of a insurrection to the established order and you may have a case.

[JimboDaMan]

You said they've "incited discontent with the administration."

As if the frustration with Obama didn't start until they pushed the buttons.

About the second sentence: I didn't say that; didn't mean that; didn't mean to imply that.

[Teller]

Pointing out that it's impossible to argue for or against the theory that "the frustration with Obama didn't start until they pushed the buttons", since "they" haven't stopped "pushing the buttons" for over a decade.

:halo:

Ohhhh.....

You're right. I forgot why I stopped supporting Bush. It was Beck and, well, Beck, because I didn't know about Palin yet.

[Teller]

About the second sentence: I didn't say that; didn't mean that; didn't mean to imply that.

I gotcha, Jimbo. My apologies for the misinterpretation.

[JimboDaMan]

Sedition is not just "inciting discontent" though. Show me how there has been a promotion of a insurrection to the established order and you may have a case.

Now I know you haven't read the entire thread or you wouldn't be saying that.

[JMS]

I think you're close to something here...I think you mean "descent is not sedition"...or maybe it was "decent is not seduction"...it's in there somewhere

ok ok I'll stop sorry

I think this is a serious discussion. Let me take one more crack at convincing you it is...

Israel is a country which benifits from some serious political dessent. Forming Israeli governing coelitions teaters on an art form. In the last Israeli election the party with the most votes wasn't even asked to form a government because the opposition party actually got more support from the other minority parties... Their system is totally fractured and totally dependent upon poltical agreements to form a governing coelition.

Clearly dessent isn't sedition there either... Now in 1995 prime minster Yitzhak Rabin, was shot and killed by an Israli settler explicitely for a political position he took with regards to the Palistinians. His assassin was a member of a politicla group inside of Israel, and the PM's widdow opennly blamed this political rival current PM Bengiman Netanyahu for the murder. Not because he planned the murder, but because his venomnous political speaches contributed to and according to Mrs Rabin, were directly responsible for the murder.

Clearly in our country words can constitute a crime. There are numerous exampels of this already given. Is inciting calls for civil unreast or violent opposition to our government one such crime (answer YES); Has Beck, Palin and Limbaugh crossed this line?

[daveakl]

Now I know you haven't read the entire thread or you wouldn't be saying that.

You would be wrong. There is no call for people to revolt against the established order. Palin and others are trying to motivate their base to vote in November. Same as Obama and other Dem's have done.

[JimboDaMan]

You would be wrong. There is no call for people to revolt against the established order. Palin and others are trying to motivate their base to vote in November. Same as Obama and other Dem's have done.

Before you go any farther I implore you to read the very first post in the thread, especially the dictionary definition of sedition.

[JMS]

Sedition is not just "inciting discontent" though. Show me how there has been a promotion of a insurrection to the established order and you may have a case.

the crime of creating a revolt, disturbance, or violence against lawful civil authority with the intent to cause its overthrow or destruction

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sedition

Sedition

–noun

1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.

2. any action, esp. in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.

3. Archaic . rebellious disorder.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sedition

sedition

late 14c., "rebellion," from O.Fr. sedicion , from L. seditionem (nom. seditio ) "civil disorder, dissention," lit. "a going apart, separation," from se- "apart" (see secret) + itio "a going," from pp. of ire "to go." Meaning "conduct or language inciting to rebellion against a lawful government" is from 1838.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sedition

[AsburySkinsFan]

This thread is ridiculous.

Agreed which is why I saw this thread for what it was from the OP, a poorly disguised ploy to kick up a fuss about nothing which would eventually allow the GOPers to claim "freedom of speech" to excuse anything they say no matter how outrageous it may be even when the things being said are coming from leaders within the party. Meanwhile the Left looks like freedom hating autocrats for calling them seditious.

I would just like our politicians to have a bit more sense of responsibility for what they say and how they say it...wouldn't that be nice? I'll go back to my reading of Utopia now.

[daveakl]

Before you go any farther I implore you to read the very first post in the thread, especially the dictionary definition of sedition.

Sedition is a term of law which refers to overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.

Let's look at the term in the way JMS is trying to use it instead of trying to hide behind a definition of the word without any context.

[JMS]

You would be wrong. There is no call for people to revolt against the established order. Palin and others are trying to motivate their base to vote in November. Same as Obama and other Dem's have done.

Again it's become common place for people to yell out threats at Pallin's rallies..

• Kill Him
  
• Off with his head
  
• Traitor
  
• Treason
  

Were a few of the threats documented. The secret service has even gotten involved in investigating threats at Pallin rallies.

Again, I don't think these types of threats or calls for violence are similary to what has occured at democratic rallies. Nor are they similar to the type of polifical dessent which this country has experienced before...

We've never had a main stream political movement who's supporters regularly purpotrated these types of threats like this. This is something entirely new.

[Teller]

We've never had a main stream political movement who's supporters regularly purpotrated these types of threats like this. This is something entirely new.

Nope.

It's always been to impress actresses before.

[Predicto]

Clearly in our country words can constitute a crime. There are numerous exampels of this already given. Is inciting calls for civil unreast or violent opposition to our government one such crime (answer YES); Has Beck, Palin and Limbaugh crossed this line?

No.

Are we done?

[daveakl]

Again it's become common place for people to yell out threats at Pallin's rallies..

• Kill Him
  
• Off with his head
  
• Traitor
  
• Treason
  

Were a few of the threats documented. The secret service has even gotten involved in investigating threats at Pallin rallies.

Again, I don't think these types of threats or calls for violence are similary to what has occured at democratic rallies. Nor are they similar to the type of polifical dessent which this country has experienced before...

We've never had a main stream political movement who's supporters regularly purpotrated these types of threats like this. This is something entirely new.

A student who was quoted in a 2007 school publication as saying, “I would like to shoot George W. Bush, because in my opinion he is the worst president ever. After that was accomplished, I would be known as a national hero”;

I seem to remember Dem's saying Bush was a bad and even the worst president.

[Teller]

No.

Are we done?

:applause:

[JimboDaMan]

Sedition is a term of law which refers to overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.

Let's look at the term in the way JMS is trying to use it instead of trying to hide behind a definition of the word without any context.

Not sure who you are arguing with, or why. Somebody asked why anybody would say Beck might be seditious. My answer was because according to the dictionary definition of sedition, he is, but that he certainly is not commiting the crime of sedition. I see almost nobody here saying Beck has broken the law or gone beyond the boundaries of his rights. Anybody making that claim, I believe, is wrong.

[daveakl]

Clearly in our country words can constitute a crime. There are numerous exampels of this already given. Is inciting calls for civil unreast or violent opposition to our government one such crime (answer YES); Has Beck, Palin and Limbaugh crossed this line?

By that logic anyone that was part of the civil rights movement should have been arrested. Same with anti-slavery. Gay Marriage, Abortion, anything that voices against the law at that time.

[daveakl]

Not sure who you are arguing with, or why. Somebody asked why anybody would say Beck might be seditious. My answer was because according to the dictionary definition of sedition, he is, but that he certainly is not commiting the crime of sedition. I see almost nobody here saying Beck has broken the law or gone beyond the boundaries of his rights. Anybody making that claim, I believe, is wrong.

well, that would be JMS, the guy that started this thread. lol.

[JMS]

Let's look at the term in the way JMS is trying to use it instead of trying to hide behind a definition of the word without any context.

JMS is quoting Websters legal dictionary, so I'm pretty sure the legal definition is what I am standing next too.

The reason why America doesn't have a history of charging main stream political rivals with sedition, is because main stream prolitical rivals havent regularly inspired threats of violence against the President of the United States... Least not since the civil war.

Someone said it would be nice for our political leaders to act responsible. I'm just taking it a step further. I think we should require it. I think their should be taboo's in political speech..... Just a few common sense ones... Like calling your opposition a terrorist bent on the destruction of the country... Professing fear for your children, your elderly parrents, if your political oposition get's his way.... Smiling or encouraging people to yell out "Kill Him" at your appearances...

I think we could come up with a few guidelines which would benifit both parties.

I don't think Obama is going to do this. Obama is the guy who declined to waste politcal capital when his political opponents showed up at his rally with automatic weapons...

No clearly I think the GOP should suggest these curbs. Because I think some modest guidelines would benifit all elected officals regardless of party.....

If Obama does get whacked, in this admosphere... Don't you think whackadoodles from the left are going to go after some of those on the right? What are we here, a banana republic?

This rhetoric is very dangrous, and will kill the republic if not safeguarded against by the repbulc just as suradly as it killed the whiemare republic.

[daveakl]

JMS is quoting Websters legal dictionary, so I'm pretty sure the legal definition is what I am standing next too.

The legal definition of the word sedition and the legal term sedition that can result in charges being brought against you are two different things.

[Jumbo]

I think this is a serious discussion. Let me take one more crack at convincing you it is...

Ok, I owe you one for bringing my typical silliness into your topic.

My posting history includes enough material to make it obvious I have precious little use for reactionary/reflexive responses, jingoism, talking-point based analyses of complex matters, rigid (let alone extremist) partisanship, general idiocy, arrogant ignorance, hypocrisy (pot/kettle universe) and other related but common behaviors which have all become significant tributaries to the mainstream of political discourse.

However, while despising such commonalities and thinking people like Beck & Palin etc (and Olbermann/Pelosi etc) are often found comfortably floating in the bottom-feeder zone of the drainage pool, I would not want them held to legal standards of "sedition" in even my most testiest moments.

It's the old saw---as a pretty free society, the benefits of giving such latitude to expression on social matters far outweigh being dependent on the grace and wisdom of whoever's in power to exercise even more control over such expression across such a broad expanse as our "whole society" (as in federal law or regulation).

So semantics aside, trying to suppress or further restrict such talk in free and open public venues as all these clowns and their fans enjoy, beyond what we are already able to do if needed, is nothing I would seek. If such speakers clearly call for violent acts or law-breaking behaviors in a prosecution-applicable manner, then go after them.

If we were to start implementing such restrictions based on that dictionary defintion and a rigid interpretation, as Henry and others pointed out, we would soon have a totally vanilla playbook and few eligible players. :pfft:

[JMS]

By that logic anyone that was part of the civil rights movement should have been arrested.

If the civil rights movement was violent and designed to overthrow the governemnt you would be right. Saddly for your point, Martin Luther King Jr. professed non-voilence, and did not advocate, preach, or demonstrate to overthrow the government.

Same with anti-slavery.

Exactly.... We executed southerners in the 1860's for treason... Course they did sucede from the union.

Gay Marriage, Abortion, anything that voices against the law at that time.

Haven't seen any Gay Marriage advocates calling for the assasignation of our elected officials. Anti Abortion folks who have bombed clinics have faced US marshals and FBI investigatoins for federal crimes unrelated or going beyond the state offense of murder.

Again their is a huge difference between dessent, and advocating, inspiring, creating violence to achieve your goals of dessent.

[Henry]

It's coming from ONE person on the left on this board.

This liberal is disagreeing with him and defending Palin's rights of speech. So are all the other liberals here.

Looks pretty consistent to me.

Oh I wasn't talking about the lefties on this board (except for maybe that one person.) Actually, I've been very impressed with most of you so far.

I was talking about the talking head who made the initial accusation.