[Reader-list] sedition vs. criticism

[Baruk S. Jacob]

Dear Kshmendra,

Thanks for the bullet point reply. Will try to keep it as coherent, and add my replies to each of yours. 
  
> 1. From the Wikipedia page alone,  I would find it difficult to reach your kind of generalisation that "Historically it seems most seditions laws have been used by governments to silence critics". It may be true though.

~ The history on the Wikipedia page of how sedition laws have been enforced  led me to that conclusion. Australia, for example, where "The new laws, 
inserted into the legislation last December, allow for the criminalization of basic expressions of political opposition, including supporting resistance to Australian military interventions." It makes me a little queasy that any country would require its citizens to support all its 'military interventions'. The article goes on to talk of the situations that various countries have enforced sedition laws.
  
> 2. History of a Law being bad or being badly interpreted or having been abused does not mean that such a Law should not exist. It only means that we should learn from the "History" of such a Law, to try our best to design
it well and make it insulated from being abused.

~ I see your point here. I would think, however, that a law that can so easily interpreted to suit those in power, AND has a history of abuse and misuse, would at the very least have iron tight definitions and clauses around it. 
  
> 3. If it is your postion that there should be an open season for citizens of a country to indulge in 'sedition' then you and I differ on that.

~ I don't have a watertight 'position' about the matter. Not yet. This discussion is helping me think through, though.
  
> 4. At least in a Democracy, the Government does not make "Laws". We the people make the Law by through our representatives in the Legislatures where the Laws are made.

~ True in principle. 
  
> The Govt only applies the Law. The nature of application/interpretation of the Law by the Government is open to challenge.

> 5. What you have called the "modern meaning" is wording (possibly from a Sedition Law) Wikipedia says is from the Elizabethean Era (circa 1590). Year 1590 is a rather convoluted recognition of "modern". Even so, any Law is only as good or bad or loose and open to abuse as it figures today in any country and particular to that country only.

~ Point taken.
  
> 6. Wikipedia has commented extensively on "sedition" even though all that you could see, from some strange reason is a quote of  a definition from around 1590:  
> -  Sedition is a term of law which refers to covert conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance)
to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel.

~ Do you notice how non-specific phrases such as "tending toward insurrection" and "incitement of discontent (or resistance)
to lawful authority" are?   

> 7. There are other critical sentences:
>  
> -  Because sedition is typically considered a subversive act, the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where those legal codes have a traceable history, there is also a record of the change of definition for what constituted sedition at
> certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological definition of sedition as well, within study of persecution.
>  
> (do not miss reference to change of definitions at different points of history for what constitutes sedition and consequent overviews to protect against persecution)
>  
> -  Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).

~ In the wikipedia examples given, weren't even a peaceful demonstration against a country's war (australia), campaigning against conscription (canada), burning a couch (new zealand), advocate the desirability of overthrowing the government (US) considered acts of sedition?

> 8. If you continue to see no difference between "sedition" and "criticism" then I cannot be of any further help.

~Thanks for the help you HAVE been!

~baruk