August 09, 2005
Perhaps you can call
me naive, but when I was in grade school we defined free speech as pretty much being able to say whatever you chose to say
without committing slander or libel vs. yelling out the word "fire" in a crowed movie theater.
In today's PC climate
it's a wonder anyone can say anything at all, but I digress.
The point that I am
trying to make is simply this; inciting people to riot, kill, maim, terrorize and basically cause destruction against there
fellow citizens in a cause of bringing down those same citizens elected government is, in my mind, an act of
sedition. It should not matter as the where-about these inflammatory words are issued, nor should it matter as to who has
spoken them in the first place, whether from a pulpit, (amazing how the left has no problem with church-state issues when
these words are spoken in a mosque), or from a street corner. The preaching of the violent overthrow of society should
not be viewed lightly, but should be scrutinized for what it is, that being hatred. This includes all extremist groups from
both side of the political aisle.
Perhaps it might be wise
to look at the historical context of the alien and sedition acts of 1798, and see wherein the advantages and pitfalls were
in the acts themselves. I do believe that the sedition act was passed but the alien act was not, however upon reading
the act (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/statutes/alien.htm) "respecting alien enemies" one finds that section one
seems to fit today’s current world climate.
It appears that Prime
Minister Tony Blair has decided to issue his own version of the aforementioned acts, yet the question remains as
to how far would the US be willing to go in a similar manner.