Replies

>> The A and S acts made it a crime to LIE about the government.

Actually there were two parts to the Sedition Act.

The first part had the strongest punishment, and no mention was made of untruthfullness. It stated:

"Unlawfully to combine or conspire together to oppose any measure of the government of the United States, &c.This section was not complained of. "

The 2nd part, with the weaker punishment, is the one you are referring to. It made it a misdemeanour to publish false, seditious writings against government, as follows:

"To write, print, utter or publish, or cause it to be done, or assist in it, any false, scandalous, and malicious writing against the government of the United States, or either House of Congress, or the President, with intent to defame, or bring either into contempt or disrepute, or to excite against either the hatred of the people of the United States, or to stir up sedition, or to excite unlawful combinations against the government, or to resist it, or to aid or encourage hostile designs of foreign nations."

" . . . . false, scandalous, and malicious writing against . . . the President, with intent to defame, . . . "

If false, yes. But 'scandalous' is not necessarily false. If it didn't matter whether it was false or not, x42 could have charged many with sedition -- notwithstanding the fact he was impeached for lying about about it.

So can we assume that anything can be said as long as it is true? The mere telling of the truth could defame, though it could be argued that the 'king' defamed himself by taking his own clothes off, in the case of x42.

Consider the innuendos and lies the dems are currently involved in against Bush. Seems to me that should qualify as sedition, according to the definition.