Talk:Sedition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Sedition and War[edit]

If the United States has not declared war, like in Iraq, are acts that interfere with the military still considered sedition? Acumensch 14:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Merger Proposal[edit]

I propose that Seditionist be merged into this article. 'Seditionist' is a stub article with highly related content, and no citations.

Dialectric (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the first sentence, there's nothing to merge. I'm all for it. MrZaiustalk 04:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Not that there's much to add - one sentence in the intro? --IdiotSavant (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree, doesn't appear to be any content (or likely potential content) that wouldn't be better suited to this article anyway. ~ mazca t|c 12:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've completed the merge. Dialectric (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Smith Act unused since 1961? really?[edit]

The article states: Although unused since at least 1961, the "Smith Act" remains a Federal law. Is that really the case, particularly in light of the subsequent paragraphs about Laura Berg and (separately) the Hutaree? Those sure look to me like post-1961 applications of the Smith Act to me, just based upon reading the article. But then, I'm no expert. Perhaps there is some distinction between "Smith Act" sedition and other laws (in the US) regarding sedition. If so, that needs to be explained in more detail for the sake of lay people like me. --TravisM (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

See also section[edit]

This seems very much random or out of context, any ideas to fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.32.118.79 (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What it really is:[edit]

Zapping/undermining, established platforms, in such a manner as to cause severe collaterol damage onto those not a direct target. (ie: pertains to large collaterol damage in relation to the event and is therefore in relation to a potencial act of terrorism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.217.235 (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This seems very vague/unclear. In the absence of a citation, I'm going to remove the note.--Tcgriffin (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Oscar Lopez Rivera and Seditious Conspiracy[edit]

Labeling OLR as a political prisoner has been stated to be a biased opinion. While his sisters opinion as to why he turned down the clemency offer is interesting, the reality has more ominous tones. OLR refused to forswear violence even though the option he seeks has been voted in plebiscites in Puerto Rico with over 85% of the adults of voting age taking part.

In addition, the resurgence of the use of Seditious Conspiracy in charging individuals was because there were few other federal charges that one could use to pursue against organizations like the FALN who killed individuals with bombing. There were no federal murder charges, and in addition, it is difficult to convict a group with murder when the details of who did what are murky, but you know the details of who belonged to the group. In the case of the FALN, a few of the individuals, for example Haydee Torres Beltran were specifically convicted of killing an individual with a bomb, because her fingerprints tied her to the room where the bomb was placed, the morning the bomb was placed. She was seen in the room at the spot where the bomb was placed, etc. In the case of the Fraunces Tavern bombing, no such details were available, but the FALN claimed responsibility for the bombing at the time.Rococo1700 (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)