What Are The Arguments Against Sedition Pros And Cons

Good Essays
I. Incitement of imminent violence
The first issue is what constitutional argument could be made against Tax’s conviction under the Sedition Statute. Under the US constitution First Amendment, laws that limit freedom of speech are unconstitutional. However, certain types of unprotected speeches that advocate violence, fighting words, hostile audience speech, obscene speech and defamatory speeches can be regulated. Fighting words is a speech that is more than annoying or offensive and causes a genuine likelihood of imminent violence by hostile audience. The speech must advocate illegal conduct, not just an abstract. The law that proscribe the conduct must not be vague or overbroad.

Here, the Sedition Statute is facially overbroad because it failed to distinguished imminent lawbreaking from abstract speech. However, the statute has been narrowly construed to apply only to advocacy
…show more content…
Fighting words
The second issue is whether Ant-Tax can made any constitutional argument against its conviction under the Abusive Words Statute. The First Amendment doesn’t protect fighting words. Fighting words are punishable if they are likely to incite an ordinary citizen to take immediate physical retaliation. The speech must be more than annoying or offensive. There must be a genuine likelihood of imminent violence by a hostile audience. If the law proscribing the conduct is vague or overbroad then it is invalid. The law is unconstitutional if made viewpoint discrimination.
Here, the Abusive Words Statute punishes any abusive word or term. The statute is overbroad because it doesn’t distinguishes between fighting words and offending words. During the TV debate, Anti-Tax called Tax a dishonest imbecile. Although this speech might be considered as abusive word under Abusive Word Statute, the statue is invalid because it overbroad. Even though fighting words are not protected under the First amendment, Anti Tax’s words are offensive and such words are protected by the

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    that the definition of hate speech is broad and unacceptable as there are far too many contrasting kinds of speech that may be considered hate speech, all of which implicate free speech interests, and may cause distinctive types of harm (Yong, 2011, p. 386). According to Robin Edger in the article, Are Hate Speech Provisions Anti-Democratic? : An International Perspective, previous rulings in discrimination and hate motivated crimes have”…excluded threatening words, or ‘fighting words,’ from the scope of the First Amendment Protection…” as they are not considered the expression and sharing of views, nor are they intended to rally supporters. Fighting words are intended to incite violence or inflict injury (Edger, 2011, p. 152). As long as speech does not threaten harm or danger, Americans cannot be deprived of free speech merely because the viewpoint being expressed is undesirable.…

    • 1102 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Why Unjust Law Is Wrong

    • 1233 Words
    • 5 Pages

    However, according to Martin Luther King Jr., this would be an unjust law. He says that “An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law.” Dr.King thinks that the topic of deporting illegal immigrants is unjust because it goes against the basic individual human rights. The immigrants are not doing anything morally wrong, but they are looking for another chance to start a new life and everyone deserves a second chance. In his letter, Martin Luther King Jr. had written, “Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damage the personality.” The United States is currently enforcing separation between immigrants and citizens of the U.S. Segregation is not helping to develop us.…

    • 1233 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    There are more important issues than arguing over something that has been decided by the Supreme Court and something that is even protected by the Constitution. It is true that “Any messages that burning the flag might convey easily can be communicated in other ways” (Allen). However, the Constitution does not say anything against it. People may want to change the law because they believe that burning the flag should be a crime. Changing the law would be unconstitutional since freedom of speech is under amendment one and changing the Bill of Rights on its own is not possible.…

    • 859 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    To threaten the stability of the state as a whole is go beyond opposing the individual’s laws, and to challenge the just principles which underpin the state. This is unacceptable. The actions are carried out within fidelity to the law. The civil disobedience does not object rule of law as such and may well accept as just the great majority of laws to which she is subject. Crucially the aim is to change a specific law or set of laws precisely because it is at odds with those just laws and repeal of unfair law.…

    • 1321 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    4th Amendment Essay

    • 565 Words
    • 3 Pages

    This must not continue because it violates America’s law saying that no citizen should be subjected to random searches. Andrew Grosso argues that the fact that the EEA now does wiretapping proves to be a violation of civil liberties and says that “wirestaps are one of the most intrusive of all investigative techniques” (Espionage and Intelligence Gathering 134). Wiretapping does not only violate the First Amendment but the Fourth Amendment as well. With the EAA listening and tracking down all of our messages and phone calls, the citizens of America are subjected to unreasonable searches and anything they say might be taken as threats against the government and United States. The Fourth Amendment should be more enforced when it comes to…

    • 565 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Criminals are labeled as criminals because they do not obey laws, so making laws to limit the ownership and usage of guns would not help prevent gun-related crimes. The laws would only limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. Perfectly stated by Jeffery Miron, “Thus the classic slogan - when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns - isn’t only a word play, it is a fundamental insight into the folly of gun prohibition. Such an approach means that the bad guys are well-armed while the law-abiding citizens are not” (“Rebutting”). Miron mentioned the foolishness of gun prohibition, which one could relate to the failure of alcohol prohibition.…

    • 1090 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Huemer's Argument Analysis

    • 2010 Words
    • 9 Pages

    In his paper “America’s Unjust Drug War” Michael Huemer presents an argument for the drug war called the Harm to Users argument that is laid out as such: (P1) Drug use is very harmful to users. (P2) The government should prohibit people from doing things that harm themselves. ( C ) Therefore, the government should prohibit drug use. This is an argument that appears to be pretty convincing. Someone who would…

    • 2010 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Ch. 5 Civil Liberties

    • 1632 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Another type of speech is symbolic speech which is an act that conveys a political message. Even though the court reasoned the same protection as real speech woud open the door to permitting all manner of illegal actions if perpetrator meant thereby to send a message you can 't just ordinarily claim that an illegal act should be protected because that action is meant to convey a political message. An example of this could be Reno v. ACLU in 1997, a law that banned sending indecent material to minors over the internet because its unconstitutional and it was proved unconstitutional because “indecent” is too vague and broad a term. Many people know the language of the First Amendment though many are not aware of how complex the legal interpretations of these provisions have become. The First Amendment has two part and the first part know as the free-exercsie clause is a little more clearer than the second part but still very confusing.…

    • 1632 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    II. Mullen’s Speech Was Inherently Likely To Provoke Violent Reaction The fundamental right of free speech on matters of public interest does not come at the expense of leaving individuals exposed to fighting words. Fighting words must: (1) have an addressee; (2) be personally abusive language, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction when addressed to ordinary individuals; and (3) be likely to incite a violent reaction in the addressee, given the context.” Nickolas S., 245 P.3d at 446. Courts have typically limited fighting words to face-to-face confrontations. Citizen, 115 P.3d at 107.…

    • 1210 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This would make the legislature unconstitutional and the legislature could be modified or scrapped entirely to fit within the framework of the US Constitution. States cannot enact a statute that violates or infringes upon the first amendment rights of an entity; the entities in this case being GMI and HDTV. In this case the free speech being violated is these companies right to commercial speech which is protected under the first amendment. However, limits can be placed upon commercial free speech, but in this case the limit restricts commercial free speech too heavily and the purpose is unsupported for protecting…

    • 972 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays