[Eastbound]

" . . . . 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.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The "and" meant all three must be present as parts of the indictment. One could print something false without being aware of its falsehood so only deliberate malicious and scandalous lies were prosecutable.

And yes truth was an acceptable defense under the A&S acts NO MATTER if it was scandalous or malicious. State laws covering similiar matters did NOT allow truth as a defense.

Certainly the RATmedia would be subject to prosecution for sedition under those acts.