When does freedom of speech become treason?

[BjornP]

And by treason, I mean the sort you should go to prison and/or an execution for.

For example, in an American context, should Socialists and Marxists go to prison for treason for either speaking about to other people, advocate for, or trying to organize political parties meant to advance Socialist ideals?

Or...

Should the charge of treason be reserved exclusively for those who attempt or plan to change the political system by force?

[SuburbanFarmer]

The charge of treason should be reserved for actual treason.

[Martin Hash]

Words without actions mean nothing.

[Speaker to Animals]

I mean.. if an American verbally or by written language informs an enemy of some classified material, or aids the enemy, that is technically treason.

[Fife]

Last I checked the First A. is not a defense to a proper prosecution for treason (one of the precious few crimes the federal government actually has the authority to prosecute).

[Speaker to Animals]

Last I checked the First A. is not a defense to a proper prosecution for treason.

Might be a fun defense, though.

[BjornP]

Last I checked the First A. is not a defense to a proper prosecution for treason (one of the precious few crimes the federal government actually has the authority to prosecute).

That's the reason I ask. I came across this:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

Seems to go well beyond the "actions, not words" ideal Martin advocates. Also can't help but think that if I was a US citizen, I might have skirted the whole "advise the overthrow of the US government" thing abit once, though not sure. Like encouraging some people who want to overthrow the government to just "get on with it". Not sure if that qualifies.

[Speaker to Animals]

Last I checked the First A. is not a defense to a proper prosecution for treason (one of the precious few crimes the federal government actually has the authority to prosecute).

That's the reason I ask. I came across this:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

Seems to go well beyond the "actions, not words" ideal Martin advocates. Also can't help but think that if I was a US citizen, I might have skirted the whole "advise the overthrow of the US government" thing abit once, though not sure. Like encouraging some people who want to overthrow the government to just "get on with it". Not sure if that qualifies.

It would be very difficult to enforce that to the letter of the law. I think that law would be struck down by the Supreme Court if the government attempted to prosecute it broadly.

Indeed, the entire premise of the American government is that the American people are supposed to rise up and overthrow the government if it ever becomes tyrannical.

In particular, the only treason charges I know of are related to actually trying to join the enemy. Usually they get people on espionage charges, etc. Aiding the enemy is another good one, but even there I think they usually get people on a specific crime of aiding the enemy.

[Fife]

Treason as understood in 1787 for the purposes of the constitution had a very specific definition. Actual making of IRL war was an essential element of the crime.

[Speaker to Animals]

Even the democrat war hero Sgt Berghdal didn't get nailed with treason, but rather the crime of ‘Misbehavior Before the Enemy’.