Can a nation restrict political speech for the interest of national security?

[Wei Wu Wei]

Targeting seditious foreign nationals for deportment is hardly anything I would consider unconscionable. Coming to the U.S. as a guest is a privilege, not a right, more so when the U.S. accepts one as a refugee from the Russian Revolution. The main group targeted for deportation, The Union of Russian Workers, openly advocated in their Declaration of Principles, that they stood for uniting American and Canadian workers against capitalism and "forces of authority". In other words, they were not citizens, but guests in our country who openly organized and advocated an insurrection against the very government and people who were harboring them. Deportation was justified.

ah yes touché

[Odysseus]

Do speech and/or opinions count as aid and comfort to the enemy?

Are ideas that do not jive with the official government stance considered aiding the enemy?

If you advocate deliberately aiding the enemy, or any action whose purpose is to cause the defeat of the US, or disclose classified information to the enemy, either directly or via third parties, then yes. The Constitutional definition of treason is very specific and clear:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted

Example 1: A sign that says, "We support our troops when they kill their officers" is an open exhortation to mutiny, and if done so for the purpose of ensuring American defeat, constitutes "levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Example 2: The statements by various imams that American Muslims' duty is to kill Americans for Allah (acted on by MAJ Nidal Hasan, among others), are treason exhortations to "levying war against them."

Example 3: Code Pink soliciting funds to provide to Iraqi insurgents clearly constitutes "giving them aid and comfort."

Example 4: Waving the enemy's flag in public is an announcement of solidarity with the enemy and loyalty to that enemy or, as the Constitution puts it, "adhering to their enemies."

[Melody]

For freedom-loving Americans, freedom of speech is one of the most treasured rights guaranteed to us.'

Obviously, there are limits to free speech (shouting Fire in a crowded theater, threatening to harm the president, ect.), but what about when the danger of the speech is political?


Some examples:


If we are in a war, should it be illegal to speak out against the war?

Should it be illegal to condemn our allies or America during peacetime or wartime? Should it be illegal to write a book that portrays America or our allies in a negative light?

If someone were to say (only say, not actually do anything mind you) "I will not participate in Obamacare and if they want to steal my tax money to punish me they can come get it themselves and if they put me in jail so be it because that's what I believe in" - should this person be arrested for speaking about doing something illegal (not complying with the health law or tax law)?

Suppose someone doesn't have any weapons or anything illegal or dangerous like that, but they talk a lot with their friends about a revolution and publically speak out against the president? Should they be arrested, executed, or deported for trying to undermine the United States Government?


Which of these examples should be illegal and prosecuting in the United States of America?

or if none of these, where do you draw the limits of free speech when it comes to issues of loyalty to the nation, and possible subversion or anti-American speech? At what point do they become traitors? At what point should dissent be considered treason?

Free speech in the USA has no line of demarcation. Freedom pf speech is just that. Freedom.

Treason, well, look at bambis admin. and get a clue about that. Treason does not need to be "recognized" by all to be treason.

[noonwitch]

If you advocate deliberately aiding the enemy, or any action whose purpose is to cause the defeat of the US, or disclose classified information to the enemy, either directly or via third parties, then yes. The Constitutional definition of treason is very specific and clear:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted

Example 1: A sign that says, "We support our troops when they kill their officers" is an open exhortation to mutiny, and if done so for the purpose of ensuring American defeat, constitutes "levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Example 2: The statements by various imams that American Muslims' duty is to kill Americans for Allah (acted on by MAJ Nidal Hasan, among others), are treason exhortations to "levying war against them."

Example 3: Code Pink soliciting funds to provide to Iraqi insurgents clearly constitutes "giving them aid and comfort."

Example 4: Waving the enemy's flag in public is an announcement of solidarity with the enemy and loyalty to that enemy or, as the Constitution puts it, "adhering to their enemies."

Example 3 is one I hadn't heard before-Code Pink annoys the hell out of me. That's a pretty clear example, too. Dumb bitches.

[Odysseus]

Free speech in the USA has no line of demarcation. Freedom pf speech is just that. Freedom.

Treason, well, look at bambis admin. and get a clue about that. Treason does not need to be "recognized" by all to be treason.

No, there is certain speech that constitutes treason. The treason trial of Tokyo Rose was based entirely on her speech. There is no constitutional right to incite mutiny in the armed forces, advocate the violent overthrow of the government or parrot enemy propaganda for the purpose of undermining the defense of the United States.

[Rebel Yell]

"you have to choose your words carefully"

So, this is what our freedom of speech is boiled down to?

Being carefull of how we speak, what we speak. Fear multiplied to keep us silent, complacent?

And be damned sure that the person your talking to or referencing is the same color as you.