Talk:Sedition Act of 1918
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Modern sedition
Is there a Federal law dealing with sedition today?
- I believe Ollie North called, at one political convention, for Ice T (or was it Ice Cube? Whoever did that "Cop Killa" song) to be charged under federal sedition laws. Either Ollie North was lying about the existence of sedition laws, or ol' Ollie's audience probably just giggled at the irony of an actual treason-committed such as Ollie North calling for such a thing against someone who was merely an untalented rap artist, since it obviously never took place anyway. --I am not good at running 05:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- No I don't think there are sedition laws. There are libel and slander laws, but those are a bit different. I'm no lawyer but I think theoretically you could be charged for libel against the US government just as you can against any other entity (a person or corporation for example.) But I doubt such a charge would go over well. I could be wrong, there may be some provision making the US government a fair target for libel and slander--I doubt it though. Its probably just not something anyone is willing to prosecute. Brentt 01:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
if there was i belive it would be unconstitutional. guest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.195.151 (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] POV
How does one go about challenging the neutrality of an article here?
The claim that the act was "in conflict with the US Constitution's First Amendment" is an example of editorializing. That the majority of the Founding Fathers themselves (who wrote the Constitution) supported such an act in their day (Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 anyone?) needs to be taken into consideration when talking about these matters -as does the US Supreme Court upholding the validity of the act in 1919. Nonetheless, the article should be amended to say that the act can "arguably be said to conflict with the US Constitution's First Amendment" because that argument can be made as can the converse argument. The goal here is POV neutrality right? Ishawnm (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- You can edit the text of biased articles yourself. As it happens, I've just rewritten the portion of this article you pointed out, but feel free to make further revisions. You can also put the {{NPOV}} tag at the top of the article and leave a note on the talk page, if you don't know what to change the text to, or want to get others' opinions. -- Beland 05:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the neutrality challange can be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.58.234 (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Anarchist Act
I have seen this in other places quoted as the Anarchist Act of 1918. I would like that included on the main page, but can't find a reputable source at the moment. Butterflyvertigo 17:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copying to Wikisource
Is this the complete text of the act? If it is not, it should not be moved to Wikisource. --Benn Newman 17:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- True, but it's also too long to be in this article. I say it should be removed or heavily cropped down. If someone feels like putting the full text up at Wikisource, or providing an external link with the full text, then that's another matter. Silverhelm 21:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] which "experts"
claimed it was against the bill of rights?
The Supreme Court upheld it RomanYankee(24.75.194.50 17:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC))
The fact that this was repealed in 1921 needs to be included.
66.245.228.81 22:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
Might want to provide a brief discussion of this legislation which is currently pending before the U.S. Senate (as of November, 2007). It is at least thematically related to the Sedition Act of 1918 as well as the original Sedition Act of 1798 and could make for an interesting paragraph pertaining to the evolution of such thought in U.S. law. Regards, -- Hadrian Swall 17:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Hadrian swall
[edit] Debs
Debs was convicted under the espionage act, not the sedition act. --69.143.66.124 (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
