Misplaced Pages

Sedition: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:18, 12 July 2010 edit112.118.149.119 (talk) Alphabetical order, legal traditions← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:09, 10 December 2024 edit undoZefr (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers69,464 edits Reverting edit(s) by Asn1234567890 (talk) to rev. 1259781605 by Achmad Rachmani: non-constructive (RW 16.1)Tags: RW Undo 
(695 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Incitement of rebellion}}
{{about|the legal term}}
{{About|the legal term}}
{{Distinguish|sedation}}
{{Redirect|Seditionist|the early 20th century Mexican-American rebel organization|Plan of San Diego}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=November 2020}}


{{Criminal law}}
'''Sedition''' is a term of ] which refers to overt conduct, such as ] and ], that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward ] against the established order. Sedition often includes ] of a ] and ] of discontent (or ]) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are ]. A '''seditionist''' is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.


'''Sedition''' is overt conduct, such as ] or ], that tends toward ] against the established order. Sedition often includes ] of a ] and ] of discontent toward, or ] against, established authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are ]. A '''seditionist''' is one who engages in or promotes the interest of sedition.
Typically, sedition is considered a subversive act, and the ]s that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where the history of these legal codes has been traced, there is also a record of the change in the definition of the elements constituting sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a ] definition of sedition as well, within the study of state ].


Because sedition is overt, it is typically not considered a subversive act, and the ]s that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary by jurisdiction.
The difference between sedition and ] consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object of the violation to the public ]. Sedition does not consist of levying war against a government nor of adhering to its enemies, giving enemies aid, and giving enemies comfort. Nor does it consist, in most ], of peaceful ] against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by ] means (such as ] or ]).


==Roman origin==
Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state, giving aid to enemies, or levying war against one's state. Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one's country by aiding and abetting another state. Sedition laws somewhat equate to ] and ].
In the later ], {{lang|la|seditio}} ({{lit|going apart}}) referred to the offence of collective disobedience toward a ], which included both military ] and civilian mob action. Leading or instigating {{lang|la|seditio}} was ].<ref>{{cite book|last=Berger|first=Adolf|title=Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law|year=1953}}</ref> Civil {{lang|la|seditio}} became frequent during the ] of the first century BCE, as ] sought to check the privileged classes by appealing to ]. The ] addressed this situation by abolishing ] and other duties of the assemblies. Under ] the crime of {{lang|la|seditio}} was subsumed in the ], which prohibited any utterance against the dignity of the emperor.<ref name="eckhard">{{cite book|last=Schnabel|first=Eckhard|title=Jesus in Jerusalem: The Last Days|year=2018}}</ref>


''Seditio'' has often been proposed as the offence for which ] was ],<ref name="eckhard"/><ref>{{cite book|last=Cook|first=John Granger|title=Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World|year=2018}}</ref> as described in {{cite bible|Luke|23:14|niv}}: "inciting the people to rebellion" ({{langx|el|ἀποστρέφοντα τὸν λαόν}}, "leading the people astray").
== History in common law jurisdictions ==
'''Sedition''' in its modern meaning first appeared in the ] (c. 1590) as the "notion of inciting by words or writings disaffection towards the state or constituted authority". "Sedition complements treason and martial law: while treason controls primarily the privileged, ecclesiastical opponents, priests, and ], as well as certain commoners; and martial law frightens commoners, sedition frightens intellectuals."
===United Kingdom===
Sedition was a ] in the UK. ]'s "Digest of the Criminal Law" stated that "''a seditious intention is an intention to bring into hatred or contempt, or to exite disaffection against the person of His Majesty, his heirs or successors, or the government and constitution of the United Kingdom, as by law established, or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice, or to excite His Majesty's subjects to attempt otherwise than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in Church or State by law established, or to incite any person to commit any crime in disturbance of the peace, or to raise discontent or disaffection amongst His Majesty's subjects, or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of such subjects.

''An intention to show that His Majesty has been misled or mistaken in his measures, or to point out errors or defects in the government or constitution as by law established , with a view to their reformation, or to excite His Majesty's subjects to attempt by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Church or State by law established , or to point out, in order to secure their removal, matters which are producing, or have a tendency to produce, feelings of hatred and ill-will between classes of His Majesty's subjects, is not a seditious intention.''"

Stephen in his "History of the Criminal Law of England" accepted the view the that a ] was nothing short of a direct incitement to disorder and violence. He stated that the modern view of the law was plainly and fully set out by Littledale J. in ''Collins''. In that case the jury were instructed that they could convict of seditios libel only if they were satisfied that the defendant "meant that the people should make use of physical
force as their own resource to obtain justice, and meant to
excite the people to take the power in to their own hands, and meant to excite them to tumult and disorder."


==History in common law jurisdictions==
The last prosecution for sedition in the ] was in 1972, when three people were charged with seditious conspiracy and uttering seditious words for attempting to recruit people to travel to ] to fight in support of Republicans. The seditious conspiracy charge was dropped, but the men received suspended sentences for uttering seditious words and for offences against the ].<ref name="LC72">The Law Commission, Treason, Sedition and Allied Offences (Working Paper No.72), paragraph 47 </nowiki> EWLC C72, BAILII]</ref>
The term ''sedition'' in its modern meaning first appeared in the ] (c. 1590) as the "notion of inciting by words or writings disaffection towards the state or constituted authority".<ref name="Breight1996">{{cite book|author=C. Breight|title=Surveillance, Militarism and Drama in the Elizabethan Era|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=m_RZCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA90|year=1996|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-0-230-37302-0|pages=89–90}}</ref> The law developed in the Court of ], relying on longstanding '']'' statutes and a broad repressive act of ] against literature that contained "the encouraging, stirring or moving of any insurrection". That seditious statements were true was no defence, but rather an aggravating factor, since true statements were all the more potent.<ref name="manning">{{cite journal|last=Manning|first=Roger B.|title=The Origins of the Doctrine of Sedition|journal=Albion|volume=12|number=2|year=1980|pages=99–121|doi=10.2307/4048812 |jstor=4048812 }}</ref> After the Star Chamber's dissolution, enforcement continued in the ] and ]s.


Three classes of seditious offence were commonly charged: "seditious words" manifested by speaking, "]" by writing or publishing, and "]" by active plotting.<ref>{{cite book|last=Stephen|first=James Fitzjames|title=A History of the Criminal Law of England|volume=2|year=1883}}</ref> Although England adopted the name of the offence from Roman-derived civil law, it did not rely on the jurisprudence.<ref name="manning"/>
In 1977, a ] ] recommended that the common law offence of sedition in England and Wales be abolished. They said that they thought that this offence was redundant and that it was not necessary to have any offence of sedition.<ref name="LC72">The Law Commission, Treason, Sedition and Allied Offences (Working Paper No.72), paragraphs 78 and 96(6) </nowiki> EWLC C72, BAILII]</ref> However this proposal was not implemented until 2009, when sedition and seditious libel were abolished by section 73 of the ] (with effect on 12 January 2010).<ref></ref>


===Australia=== ===Australia===
{{main|Australian sedition law}} {{Main|Australian sedition law}}
]'s sedition laws were amended in ] passed on 6 December 2005, updating definitions and increasing penalties. Australia's sedition laws were amended in ] passed on 6 December 2005, updating definitions and increasing penalties.


In late 2006, the ] government proposed plans to amend Australia's ], introducing laws that mean artists and writers may be jailed for up to seven years if their work was considered seditious or inspired sedition either deliberately or accidentally.<ref name="Gaol">, ]'s '']'' transcript, 24 October 2006</ref> Opponents of these laws have suggested that they could be used against legitimate dissent. In late 2006, the Commonwealth Government, under the Prime-Ministership of ] proposed plans to amend Australia's ], introducing laws that meant artists and writers may be jailed for up to seven years if their work was considered seditious or inspired sedition either deliberately or accidentally.<ref name="Gaol">, ]'s '']'' transcript, 24 October 2006</ref> Opponents of these laws have suggested that they could be used against dissent that may be seen as legitimate.


<blockquote>In 2006, the then Australian attorney-general Philip Ruddock had rejected calls by two reports — from a ] committee and the ] — to limit the sedition provisions in the ] by requiring proof of intention to cause disaffection or violence. He had also brushed aside recommendations to curtail new clauses outlawing “urging conduct” that “assists” an “organisation or country engaged in armed hostilities” against the ]. In 2006, the then Australian Attorney-General Philip Ruddock had rejected calls by two reports—from a ] committee and the ]—to limit the sedition provisions in the ] by requiring proof of intention to cause disaffection or violence. He had also brushed aside recommendations to curtail new clauses outlawing "urging conduct" that "assists" an "organization or country engaged in armed hostilities" against the ].


These laws were amended in Australia on 19 September 2011. The 'sedition' clauses were repealed and replaced with 'urging violence'.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.visualarts.net.au/newsdesk/2011/09/sedition-deleted-in-national-security-legislation-amendment-act |title=Artists' freedom of expression protected with sedition deletion in 'National Security Legislation Amendment Act 2010' |website=National Association for the Visual Arts Ltd |access-date=10 October 2011 |archive-date=31 December 2012 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20121231071027/http://www.visualarts.net.au/newsdesk/2011/09/sedition-deleted-in-national-security-legislation-amendment-act |url-status=dead }}</ref>
The new laws, inserted into the legislation December 2005, allow for the criminalization of basic expressions of political opposition, including supporting resistance to Australian military interventions, such as those in ], ] and the ] region.
<ref>, Mike Head, ''World Socialist Web Site'', 27 October 2006</ref>
</blockquote>


===Canada=== ===Canada===
In Canada, sedition, which includes speaking seditious words, publishing a seditious libel, and being party to a seditious conspiracy, is an indictable offense, for which the maximum punishment is of fourteen years' imprisonment. For military personnel, Section 82 of the National Defence Act cites Seditious Offences as advocating governmental change by force, punishable by imprisonment for life or to less. Service offences up to two years imprisonment are served in a ], followed by transfer to a penitentiary for the remainder of the sentence.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/page-11.html|title=Consolidated federal laws of canada, National Defence Act|first=Legislative Services|last=Branch|date=1 August 2019|website=laws-lois.justice.gc.ca}}</ref>
During ] former ] of ] ] campaigned against ] in ]. On August 2, 1940, Houde publicly urged the men of ] to ignore the National Registration Act. Three days later, he was placed under ] by the ] on charges of sedition. After being found guilty, he was confined in ] in ], ], and ], ], until 1944. Upon his release on August 18, 1944, he was greeted by a cheering crowd of 50,000 Montrealers and won back his position as the Mayor of Montreal in the election in 1944.
{{Citation needed|date=October 2008}}


During World War II, ] campaigned against conscription. On 2 August 1940, Houde publicly urged the men of Quebec to ignore the national registration measure introduced by the federal government.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Dk8wAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XE0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5649,680535|title=St. Petersburg Times |website= Google News Archive }}</ref> Three days later, he was placed under arrest by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on charges of sedition, and then confined without trial in internment camps in Petawawa, Ontario and Ripples, New Brunswick until 1944.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=jBE_AAAAIBAJ&sjid=_E4MAAAAIBAJ&pg=5514,5498409|title=The Windsor Daily Star |website= Google News Archive }}</ref> Upon his release on 18 August 1944, he was greeted by a cheering crowd of 50,000 Montrealers, and won back his job as Montreal mayor in 1944's civic election.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/camillien-houde/|title=Camillien Houde|last=McKenna|first=Brian|date=4 March 2015|website=The Canadian Encyclopedia|access-date=29 January 2018}}</ref>
=== Hong Kong===

According to the ], a seditious intention is an intention to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the person of government, to excite inhabitants of Hong Kong to attempt to procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any other matter in Hong Kong as by law established, to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Hong Kong, to raise discontent or disaffection amongst inhabitants of Hong Kong, to promote feelings of ill-will and enmity between different classes of the population of Hong Kong, to incite persons to violence, or to counsel disobedience to law or to any lawful order. <ref></ref><ref></ref>
===Hong Kong===
{{Update section|date=March 2024|inaccurate=yes|reason=Sedition in ] replaced by offence under ]}}
A Sedition Ordinance had existed in the territory since 1970, which was subsequently consolidated into the ] in 1972.<ref>. Government of Hong Kong. Retrieved 19 September 2015.</ref> According to the Crimes Ordinance, a seditious intention is an intention to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the person of government, to excite inhabitants of Hong Kong to attempt to procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any other matter in Hong Kong as by law established, to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Hong Kong, to raise discontent or disaffection amongst inhabitants of Hong Kong, to promote feelings of ill-will and enmity between different classes of the population of Hong Kong, to incite persons to violence, or to counsel disobedience to law or to any lawful order.<ref>{{Cite Hong Kong ordinance|name=Crimes Ordinance|200|9}}</ref> Sedition is punishable by a fine of HK$5,000 and imprisonment for 2 years, and further offences are punishable by imprisonment for 3 years.<ref>{{Cite Hong Kong ordinance|name=Crimes Ordinance|200|10|1}}</ref>

] of the ] requires the ] to enact laws prohibiting any act that be said of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the ] of the ].<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100729032916/http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/chapter_2.html |date=29 July 2010 }}. Government of Hong Kong. Retrieved 19 September 2015.</ref> The National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill was tabled in early 2003 to replace the existing laws regarding treason and sedition, and to introduce new laws to prohibit secessionist and subversive acts and theft of state secrets, and to prohibit political organizations from establishing overseas ties. The bill was shelved following massive opposition from the public.

The ], enacted on 30 June 2020, contains articles prohibiting secession and subversion against the Central Government and the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Both charges may carry penalty up to life imprisonment. Notably, Hong Kong's National Security Law was drafted by the ], and passed by the National People's Congress, as part of the Annex III the ]. This law was written in Mainland China's civil law as opposed to Hong Kong's common law traditions.

===India===
{{Main|Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code}}
In 2003, the ] general secretary, ], was sought to be charged with sedition for allegedly waging a war against the elected government and taking part in anti-national activity.<ref>{{cite web|agency=TNN|date=Apr 17, 2003|title=Sedition charge against Togadia|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sedition-charge-against-togadia/articleshow/43611076.cms|access-date=2021-06-11|website=The Times of India|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Nilanjana Bhaduri Jha|date=Apr 17, 2003|title=Will sedition charge stick on Togadia?|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/will-sedition-charge-stick-on-togadia/articleshow/43673109.cms|access-date=2021-06-11|website=The Times of India|language=en}}</ref>

In 2010, writer ] was sought to be charged with sedition for her comments on ] and ]s.<ref name=":0">{{cite web|date=2012-09-11|agency=IBNLive.com|title=Sedition and treason: the difference between the two|url=https://www.news18.com/news/india/sedition-and-treason-the-difference-between-the-two-506675.html|access-date=2021-03-05|website=News18|language=en}}</ref> Two individuals have been charged with sedition since 2007.<ref name=":0" /> ], an Indian doctor and public health specialist, and activist was found guilty of sedition.<ref>{{cite web|date=10 February 2011|title=Binayak Sen's mother breaks down on hearing HC verdict|url=http://news.oneindia.in/2011/02/10/binayaksens-mother-breaks-down-on-hearing-hcverdict-aid0126.html|url-status=live|access-date=2021-03-05|website=One India|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120120142846/http://news.oneindia.in/2011/02/10/binayaksens-mother-breaks-down-on-hearing-hcverdict-aid0126.html|archive-date=20 January 2012}}</ref> He is national Vice-President of the ] (PUCL). On 24 December 2010, the Additional Sessions and District Court Judge B.P Varma Raipur found Binayak Sen, ] ideologue ] and Kolkata businessman Piyush Guha, guilty of sedition for helping the Maoists in their fight against the state. They were sentenced to life imprisonment, but he got bail in Supreme Court on 16 April 2011.<ref>. Indian Express (16 April 2011).</ref>

On 10 September 2012, ], a ], was sent to judicial custody till 24 September 2012 on charges of sedition over a series of cartoons against ]. Trivedi was accused of uploading "ugly and obscene" content to his website, also accused of insulting the Constitution during an ] in Mumbai in 2011. Trivedi's arrest under sedition has been heavily criticised in India. The Press Council of India termed it a "stupid" move.<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120912195542/http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Cartoonist-Aseem-Trivedi-refuses-to-take-bail-sent-to-judicial-custody-till-Sept-24/Article1-927390.aspx |date=12 September 2012 }}. Hindustantimes.com. Retrieved 19 September 2015.</ref>

In February 2016, ] president ] was arrested on charges of Sedition & raising voice for the '']'' under section 124-A of ] (which was part of the sedition laws implemented by the British Rule). His arrest raised political turmoil in the country with academicians and activists marching and protesting against this move by the government. He was released on interim bail on 2 March 2016 for a lack of conclusive evidence.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/kanhaiya-kumar-bail-jnu-delhi-high-court/|title=JNU row: Kanhaiya Kumar gets bail and a lesson on thoughts that 'infect… (like) gangrene'|last=Mathur|first=Aneesha|date=3 March 2016|work=The Indian Express|access-date=29 January 2018}}</ref> On 13 January 2019, The Delhi Police filed a chargesheet on Monday against former Jawaharlal Nehru University Students' Union (JNUSU) president Kanhaiya Kumar and others in a sedition case lodged in 2016.<ref>{{cite news|title=JNU case: Delhi Police charge Kanhaiya Kumar, others with sedition|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/sedition-case-delhi-police-file-chargesheet-against-kanhaiya-kumar/articleshow/67525192.cms|website=The Times of India|date=14 January 2019 }}</ref>

On 17 August 2016, ] India was booked in a case of "sedition" and "promoting enmity" by Bengaluru police. A complaint was filed by ABVP, an all India student organization affiliated to the Hindu Nationalist ].<ref>{{cite news |last1=Chhibber |first1=Maneesh |title=Amnesty booked for sedition: Supreme Court against applying law without sufficient cause |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/amnesty-booked-for-sedition-supreme-court-against-applying-law-without-sufficient-cause-2978744/ |access-date=2022-08-30 |work=The Indian Express |date=2016-08-16}}</ref>

In September 2018, ], the ] Social Media chief was booked for sedition for calling ], the ], a thief.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/270918/hours-after-sedition-case-congress-divya-spandana-tweets-pm-chor-hai.html |title=Hours after sedition case, Congress' Divya Spandana again tweets 'PM Chor Hai' |work=] |location=Mumbai |date=27 September 2018 |access-date=9 October 2018}}</ref>

On 10 January 2019, a sedition case was registered suo-motto against ] and two others for their remarks against the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill. Gohain called the move "a desperate attempt by a cornered government".<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sedition-charges-absurd-and-grotesque-hiren-gohain/articleshow/67507023.cms | title=Sedition charges absurd and grotesque: Hiren Gohain |work=]}}</ref>

On February 13, 2020, a sedition case was registered against ] a ], by the ] for allegedly trying to incite perpetuate violence and defame India with regards to her support of the ].<ref>{{cite web|last=SAYEED|first=VIKHAR AHMED|title=Disha Ravi, an environmental activist from Bengaluru, arrested by Delhi police and charged with sedition for 'formulation and dissemination' of a toolkit to aid protesting farmers which was shared by Greta Thunberg|url=https://frontline.thehindu.com/dispatches/disha-ravi-an-environmental-activist-from-bengaluru-arrested-by-delhi-police-and-charged-with-sedition-for-formulation-and-dissemination-of-a-toolkit-to-aid-protesting-farmers-which-was-shared-by-greta-thunberg/article33841330.ece|access-date=2021-06-11|website=Frontline|date=15 February 2021 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=2021-03-02|title=Conspiracy, sedition: Ruling in Disha Ravi case raises bar for State|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/conspiracy-sedition-ruling-in-disha-ravi-case-raises-bar-for-state-7201885/|access-date=2021-06-11|website=The Indian Express|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=What Exactly is the Crime Disha Ravi is Accused Of?|url=https://thewire.in/rights/disha-ravi-toolkit-sedition-bail-farmers-protest-khalistan|access-date=2021-06-11|website=The Wire}}</ref>

A sedition case was filed against ], journalist ] and 5 other journalists by Noida Police for allegedly instigating violence and spreading misinformation over a series of tweets during the violence from a ] on republic day on 26 January in New Delhi.<ref>{{cite web|date=2021-01-29|title=Tharoor, Sardesai, Others Booked for Sedition Over R-Day Violence|url=https://www.thequint.com/news/india/tharoor-sardesai-and-5-others-filed-for-sedition-by-up-police|access-date=2021-01-30|website=The Quint|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Shashi Tharoor, 6 Journalists Face Sedition For Farmers' Protest Posts|url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/shashi-tharoor-6-journalists-face-sedition-for-farmers-protest-posts-2359711|access-date=2021-01-30|website=NDTV.com}}</ref>

As of May 2022, Supreme Court of India has put sedition law on hold and ordered the government to not book further cases under the same.<ref>{{cite news |title=Supreme Court Puts Sedition Law in Abeyance During Government 'Review' |url=https://thewire.in/law/supreme-court-puts-sedition-law-in-abeyance-during-government-review |access-date=2022-08-30 |work=The Wire |date=2022-05-11}}</ref>

Sedition as defined under ] has been replaced by ]<ref>{{Cite web |title=Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita |url=https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/250883_english_01042024.pdf}}</ref>

===Ireland===
Article 40.6.1° (i) of the 1937 ] guaranteed the right to ], subject to several constraints, among them:<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#article40_6_1|title=Constitution of Ireland|work=]|access-date=11 May 2016}}</ref>
{{Blockquote|The publication or utterance of seditious or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.}}
Advocates for freedom of speech have argued that this constraint ought to be removed;<ref name="committees30thdail">{{cite web|url=http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/committees30thdail/j-constitution/report_2008/100708-Report1.pdf#page=41|title=Article 40.6.1.i – Freedom of Expression|author=Joint Committee on the Constitution|date=July 2008 |work=First Report |format=PDF|publisher=Oireachtas|pages=41; Sections 2.116, 2.117|access-date=11 May 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110221165241/http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/committees30thdail/j-constitution/report_2008/100708-Report1.pdf|archive-date=21 February 2011|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="Murray2009">{{cite web|url=http://humanrights.ie/announcements/blasphemy-sedition-and-the-defamation-act-2009/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160421005922/http://humanrights.ie/announcements/blasphemy-sedition-and-the-defamation-act-2009/|url-status=dead|archive-date=21 April 2016|title=Blasphemy, Sedition and the Defamation Act 2009|last=Murray|first=Colin|date=11 September 2009|work=Human Rights in Ireland|access-date=11 May 2016}}</ref> any ] requires a ]. The ] of the constitution removed the offence of blasphemy.

The ] since the 1922 independence of the ] inherited earlier ] principles based on ].<ref>Law Reform Commission 1991, Chapter One</ref> The crime of seditious libel was presumed to persist, although last prosecuted in 1901.<ref>Law Reform Commission 1991, section 75</ref><ref name="FordeLeonard2013">{{cite book|last1=Forde|first1=Michael|last2=Leonard|first2=David|title=Constitutional Law of Ireland|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YVsQAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA845|access-date=11 May 2016|year=2013|publisher=A&C Black|isbn=978-1847667380|pages=845; section 29.11}}</ref> After the common law offence of ] was ruled in 1999 to be incompatible with the constitution's guarantee of ], jurists argued that seditious libel was similarly unconstitutional.<ref name="committees30thdail"/><ref name="Murray2009" /> Both blasphemous libel and seditious libel were abolished by the Defamation Act 2009, which also created new crime of "]" to fulfil the constitutional requirement with regard to blasphemy.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/31/enacted/en/html|title=Defamation Act 2009|work=]|pages=Sections 35, 36 |no-pp=y|access-date=11 May 2016}}</ref><ref name="Murray2009" /> No new offence was created for sedition in 2009;<ref name="Murray2009" /> this was in line with the recommendations of a 1991 consultation paper on ] by the ] (LRC) on the basis that several statutes define offences which are tantamount to sedition.<ref>Law Reform Commission 1991, sections 215, 216, 217</ref>

The ] created the offences of making, distributing, and possessing a "seditious document".<ref>Law Reform Commission 1991, section 215</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1939/act/13/enacted/en/index.html|title=Offences Against the State Act, 1939|work=]|pages=Sections 2, 10(1)(c), 12 |no-pp=y|access-date=11 May 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Quinn|first=Sean E. |title=Criminal Law in Ireland|year=2009|publisher=Irish Law Publishing|isbn=978-1871509540|pages=sections 51.102–51.111 |no-pp=y}}</ref> The LRC suggests that "sedition", left undefined by the constitution, might be implicitly defined by the 1939 act's definition of a "seditious document" as one:<ref name="lrc82">Law Reform Commission 1991, section 82; citing </ref>
# consisting of or containing matter calculated or tending to undermine the public order or the authority of the State, or
# which alleges, implies, or suggests or is calculated to suggest that the government functioning under the Constitution is not the lawful government of the State or that there is in existence in the State any body or organization not functioning under the Constitution which is entitled to be recognised as being the government of the country, or
# which alleges, implies, or suggests or is calculated to suggest that the military forces maintained under the Constitution are not the lawful military forces of the State, or that there is in existence in the State a body or organization not established and maintained by virtue of the Constitution which is entitled to be recognised as a military force, or
# in which words, abbreviations, or symbols referable to a military body are used in referring to an unlawful organization
These provisions were largely aimed at ] who believed the 1922 Free State was a usurpation of the ] proclaimed ] and again ]. The fourth provision made the use of the names "]" and "]" seditious as they were regarded as rightfully used by the ]. The LRC notes that advocating violence is not essential for a document to be seditious.<ref name="lrc82"/>

The LRC also notes that Section 1A of the Broadcasting Authority Act 1960 (inserted in 1976<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1976/act/37/section/3/enacted/en/html#sec3|title=Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1976, Section 3|work=]|access-date=11 May 2016}}</ref>) prohibited broadcasting of "anything which may reasonably be regarded as being likely to promote, or incite to, crime or as tending to undermine the authority of the State".<ref>Law Reform Commission 1991, section 216</ref> The 1960 act has since been replaced by the ], section 39 of which obliges broadcaster not to broadcast "anything which may reasonably be regarded as causing harm or offense, or as being likely to promote, or incite to, crime or as tending to undermine the authority of the State".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/18/section/39/enacted/en/html#sec39|title=Broadcasting Act 2009, Section 39|work=]|access-date=11 May 2016}}</ref>

===Malaysia===
{{Main|Sedition Act (Malaysia)}}

=== Mauritius ===
The sedition law is based on Article 283 of the Criminal Code which was enacted in 1838.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-05-02 |title=Judiciary: is it right to revive the old sedition law in Darren Seedeeal's case? |url=https://lexpress.mu/node/408233 |access-date=2024-03-07 |website=lexpress.mu |language=fr}}</ref>


===New Zealand=== ===New Zealand===
Sedition charges were not uncommon in ] early in the 20th Century. For instance, the future ] ] had been convicted of sedition in his youth for arguing against conscription during World War I, and was imprisoned for a year. Perhaps ironically, Fraser re-introduced the ] of troops as the Prime Minister during ].<ref>, nzhistory.net.nz, History Group of the New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage.</ref> Sedition charges were not uncommon in ] early in the 20th century.<ref>{{Cite web |date=19 Apr 1917 |title=ANTI-CONSCRIPTION. GREYMOUTH EVENING STAR |url=https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GEST19170419.2.5.1 |access-date=2022-12-10 |website=paperspast.natlib.govt.nz}}</ref> For instance, the future ] ] had been convicted of sedition in his youth for arguing against conscription during World War I, and was imprisoned for a year. Perhaps ironically, Fraser re-introduced the ] of troops as the Prime Minister during World War II.<ref>, nzhistory.net.nz, History Group of the New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage.</ref>


In ]'s first sedition trial in decades, ] was convicted of sedition (section 83 of the ]) on 8 June 2006. In New Zealand's first sedition trial in decades, ] was convicted of sedition (section 83 of the ]) on 8 June 2006.
Shortly after, in September 2006, the New Zealand Police laid a sedition charge against a ] youth, Christopher Russell, 17, who was also charged with threatening to kill<ref>, '']'', 17 October 2006</ref>. The Police withdrew the sedition charge when Russell agreed to plead guilty on the other charge<ref>, ''No Right Turn'' ], 28 February 2007</ref>. Shortly after, in September 2006, the New Zealand Police laid a sedition charge against a ] youth, who was also charged with threatening to kill.<ref name="NZ_Herald_10406234">{{cite news |url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10406234 |title=Law advice body wants to scrap crime of sedition |author=Collins, Simon |date=17 October 2006 |work=] |access-date=8 November 2011}}</ref> The police withdrew the sedition charge when the youth agreed to plead guilty on the other charge.<ref>, ''No Right Turn'' ], 28 February 2007</ref>


In March 2007, Mark Paul Deason, the manager of a tavern near the ], was charged with seditious intent<ref>, ''Infonews.co.nz'', 11 April 2007</ref> although he was later granted ] when he pleaded guilty to publishing a document which encourages public disorder<ref>, ''Crime.co.nz'', 29 March 2007</ref> Deason ran a promotion for his tavern that offered one litre of beer for one litre of petrol. At the end of the promotion, the prize would have been a couch soaked in the petrol. It is presumed the intent was for the couch to be burned — a popular university student prank. Police also applied for Deason's liquor license to be revoked. In March 2007, Mark Paul Deason, the manager of a tavern near the ], was charged with seditious intent<ref>, ''Infonews.co.nz'', 11 April 2007</ref> although he was later granted ] when he pleaded guilty to publishing a document which encourages public disorder.<ref>, ''Crime.co.nz'', 29 March 2007</ref> Deason ran a promotion for his tavern that offered one litre of beer for one litre of petrol where at the end of the promotion, the prize would have been a couch soaked in the petrol. It is presumed the intent was for the couch to be burned—a popular university student prank. Police also applied for Deason's liquor license to be revoked.


Following a recommendation from the ]<ref>{{PDFlink| |68.8&nbsp;]<!-- application/pdf, 70525 bytes -->}}, ], 5 April 2007</ref>, the New Zealand government announced on 7 May 2007 that the sedition law would be repealed<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200705071751/sedition_law_to_be_repealed| title=Sedition law to be repealed| publisher=]| date=2007-05-07|accessdate=2007-05-05}}</ref>. The ] was passed on 24 October 2007, and entered into force on 1 January 2008.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://en.wikinews.org/New_Zealand_repeals_sedition_law |title=New Zealand repeals sedition law |publisher=Wikinews |date=2007-10-24 |accessdate=2007-10-24}}</ref> Following a recommendation from the ],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/UploadFiles/Publications/Publication_128_353_PR%20SED%202.pdf |title=Law Commission recommends abolition of seditious offences |publisher=] |date=5 April 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100602065539/http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/UploadFiles/Publications/Publication_128_353_PR%20SED%202.pdf |archive-date=2 June 2010 }}</ref> the New Zealand government announced on 7 May 2007 that the sedition law would be repealed.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200705071751/sedition_law_to_be_repealed |title=Sedition law to be repealed |publisher=] |date=7 May 2007 |access-date=5 May 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120118045251/http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200705071751/sedition_law_to_be_repealed |archive-date=18 January 2012 }}</ref> The ] was passed on 24 October 2007, and entered into force on 1 January 2008.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2007/0096/latest/whole.html|title=Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Act 2007 No 96, Public Act|website=New Zealand Legislation}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://en.wikinews.org/New_Zealand_repeals_sedition_law |title=New Zealand repeals sedition law |publisher=Wikinews |date=24 October 2007 |access-date=24 October 2007}}</ref>{{unreliable source?|date=May 2020}}

Russell Campbell made a documentary regarding conscientious objectors in New Zealand called ''Sedition.''

===Singapore===
{{Main|Sedition Act (Singapore)}}

===United Kingdom===
{{See also|Sedition Act 1661}}

Sedition was a ] in the UK. ]'s "Digest of the Criminal Law" stated that:
{{Blockquote|...&nbsp;a seditious intention is an intention to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against the person of His Majesty, his heirs or successors, or the government and ], as by law established, or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice, or to excite His Majesty's subjects to attempt otherwise than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in Church or State by law established, or to incite any person to commit any crime in disturbance of the peace, or to raise discontent or disaffection amongst His Majesty's subjects, or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of such subjects.

An intention to show that His Majesty has been misled or mistaken in his measures, or to point out errors or defects in the government or constitution as by law established, with a view to their reformation, or to excite His Majesty's subjects to attempt by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Church or State by law established, or to point out, in order to secure their removal, matters which are producing, or have a tendency to produce, feelings of hatred and ill-will between classes of His Majesty's subjects, is not a seditious intention.}}

Stephen in his ''History of the Criminal Law of England'' accepted the view that a ] was nothing short of a direct incitement to disorder and violence. He stated that the modern view of the law was plainly and fully set out by Littledale J. in ''Collins''. In that case the jury were instructed that they could convict of seditious libel only if they were satisfied that the defendant "meant that the people should make use of physical force as their own resource to obtain justice, and meant to excite the people to take the power in to their own hands, and meant to excite them to tumult and disorder".

The last prosecution for sedition in the United Kingdom was in 1972, when three people were charged with seditious conspiracy and uttering seditious words for attempting to recruit people to travel to ] to fight in support of Republicans. The seditious conspiracy charge was dropped, but the men received suspended sentences for uttering seditious words and for offences against the ].<ref name="LC72">The Law Commission, "Treason, Sedition and Allied Offences" (Working Paper No.72), paragraphs 78 and 96(6) , BAILII</ref>

In 1977, a ] ] recommended that the common law offence of sedition in England and Wales be abolished. They said that they thought that this offence was redundant and that it was not necessary to have any offence of sedition.<ref name="LC72" /> However this proposal was not implemented until 2009, when sedition and seditious libel (as common law offences) were abolished in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland by section 73 of the ],<ref>{{cite legislation UK |type=act |year=2009 |chapter=25 |section=73 |act=Coroners and Justice Act 2009 |access-date=19 September 2015 |date=12 November 2009}}</ref> with effect from 12 January 2010.<ref>{{cite legislation UK |type=act |year=2009 |chapter=25 |section=182 |act=Coroners and Justice Act 2009 |access-date=19 September 2015 |date=12 November 2009}}</ref>

In Scotland, section 51 of the ] abolished the common law offences of sedition and ]<ref>. Legislation.gov.uk (6 November 2014). Retrieved 19 September 2015.</ref> with effect from 28 March 2011.<ref>{{Cite legislation Scotland
| type = ssi
| year = 2011
| number = 178
| ssi = The Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (Commencement No. 8, Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2011
}}</ref>

Sedition by an ] is still an offence under section 3 of the ], punishable by up to three months of imprisonment if convicted summarily, or up to ten years of imprisonment if convicted on indictment.<ref>{{Cite legislation UK |type=act |year=1919 |chapter=92 |act=Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919 |section=3 |date=23 December 1919 |accessdate=25 April 2024}}</ref>


===United States=== ===United States===
{{See also|Seditious conspiracy}}

====Civilian==== ====Civilian====
The charge of seditious libel for true statements was weakened, but not abolished, in the 1735 ] case of ''Crown v. ]''. Zenger had published attacks on Governor ] that were well received in the province. The Attorney General charged him by ], bypassing the grand jury process, and Zenger was acquitted by a trial jury.
There have been 24 attempts in the United States to regulate speech through legislation banning sedition.


In 1798, President ] signed into law the ], the fourth of which, the ''Sedition Act'' or "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States" set out punishments of up to two years of imprisonment for "opposing or resisting any law of the United States" or writing or publishing "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the ] or the ], but specifically not the ]. This Act of Congress was allowed to expire in 1801 after the election of ] to the Presidency. He had been the Vice-President at the time of the Act's passage. President ] signed into law the ], which set out punishments of up to two years of imprisonment for "opposing or resisting any law of the United States" or writing or publishing "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the ] or the ] (though not the office of the ], then occupied by Adams' political opponent ]). This Act of Congress was allowed to expire in 1801 after Jefferson's election to the Presidency;<ref>{{cite web |url=http://history.house.gov/HistoricalHighlight/Detail/36271?ret=True |title=The Sedition Act of 1798 |website=History, Art & Archives, U.S. House of Representatives |access-date=29 January 2018 }}</ref> Jefferson pardoned those still serving sentences, and fines were repaid by the government. This law was never appealed to the United States Supreme Court (which had not yet established its power to invalidate laws passed by Congress granted in ]) but opponents claimed it was unconstitutional under the ].


], '']'', 1917]]
In the ], Section 3 made it a crime, punishable by up to 20 years of imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000, to willfully spread false news of the American army and navy with an intent to disrupt their operations, to foment mutiny in their ranks, or to obstruct recruiting. This Act of Congress was amended ], which expanded the scope of the Espionage Act to any statement criticizing the ]. These Acts were upheld in 1919 in the case of '']'', but they were largely repealed in 1921, leaving laws forbidding foreign espionage in the United States and allowing military ] of sensitive material.


In the ], Section 3 made it a federal crime, punishable by up to 20 years of imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000, to willfully spread false news of the ] or ] with an intent to disrupt its operations, to foment ] in their ranks, or to obstruct recruiting. This Act of Congress was amended by the ], which expanded the scope of the Espionage Act to any statement criticizing the ]. These laws were upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1919 decisions '']'' (concerning distribution of flyers urging men to resist the draft) and '']'' (concerning leaflets urging cessation of weapons production). Schenck led to the "]" explanation of the limits of ]. The laws were largely repealed in 1921, leaving laws forbidding foreign ] in the United States and allowing military ] of sensitive material.
In 1940, the Alien Registration Act, or "]", was passed, which made it a crime to advocate or to teach the desirability of overthrowing the ], or to be a member of any organization which does the same. It was often used against ] organizations. This Act was invoked in three major cases, one of which against the ] in ] in 1941, resulting in 23 convictions, and again in what became known as the ] in which a number of pro-] figures were indicted but released when the prosecution ended in a ]. Also, a series of trials of 140 leaders of the ] also relied upon the terms of the "Smith Act" - beginning in 1949 - and lasting until 1957. Although the ] upheld the convictions of 11 CPUSA leaders in 1951 in ] , that same Court reversed itself in 1957 in the case of '']'', by ruling that teaching an ideal, no matter how harmful it may seem, does not equal advocating or planning its implementation. Although unused since at least 1961, the "Smith Act" remains a Federal law.


In 1940, the Alien Registration Act, or "]", was passed, which made it a federal crime to advocate or to teach the desirability of overthrowing the ], or to be a member of any organization which does the same. It was often used against ] organizations. This Act was invoked in three major cases, one of which against the ] in ] in 1941, resulting in 23 convictions, and again in what became known as the ] in which a number of pro-] figures were indicted but released when the prosecution ended in a ]. Also, a series of trials of 140 leaders of the ] also relied upon the terms of the "Smith Act"—beginning in 1949—and lasting until 1957. Although the ] upheld the convictions of 11 CPUSA leaders in 1951 in '']'', that same Court reversed itself in 1957 in the case of '']'', by ruling that teaching an ideal, no matter how harmful it may seem, does not equal advocating or planning its implementation. Although unused since at least 1961,{{citation needed|date=August 2019}} the "Smith Act" remains a federal law.
Laura Berg, a nurse at a ] hospital in ] was investigated for sedition in September 2005<ref>, '']'', published on ''First Amendment Center'', February 8, 2006</ref> after writing a letter<ref>, ''Alibi.com'', February 9–15, 2006</ref><ref>, ''Alibi.com'', March 9–15, 2006</ref> to the editor of a local newspaper, accusing several national leaders of criminal negligence. Though their action was later deemed unwarranted by the director of Veteran Affairs, local human resources personnel took it upon themselves to request an ] investigation. Ms. Berg was represented by the
]<ref>, '']'', January 31, 2006</ref>. Charges were dropped in 2006.<ref>http://www.reason.com/news/show/117345.html</ref>


There was, however, a brief attempt to use the sedition laws, as defined by the ] amendments to the Espionage Act of 1917, after socialist leagues in America distributed leaflets calling for resisting the draft. Those amendments were deemed incompatible with freedom of speech under American law, in spite of the exceptional circumstances that led to those laws, against ]. On 17 October 1967, two demonstrators, while engaged in a ] at the Army Induction Center in ], were arrested and charged with sedition by a deputy U.S. Marshal. U.S. Attorney ] changed the charge to trespassing. Poole said, "three guys reaching up and touching the leg of an inductee, and that's conspiracy to commit sedition? That's ridiculous!" The marshals were in the process of stepping on the demonstrators as they attempted to enter the building, and the demonstrators were trying to protect themselves from the marshals' feet. Attorney Poole later added, "We'll decide what to prosecute, not marshals."<ref> The Press Democrat. Santa Rosa, California. 20 October 1967.</ref><ref>''San Francisco Chronicle'', 21 October 1967, p. 7, ''UPI – Independent Journal of Marin'', 21 October 1967, p. 4</ref> This decision drew the ire of California Senator ], who would later block Poole's confirmation to a federal judgeship in response.
On March 28, 2010, nine members of the militia ] were arrested and charged with crimes including ].<ref>http://www.adl.org/NR/exeres/6636B995-3355-4D28-9FD0-07B7FA2FE153,DB7611A2-02CD-43AF-8147-649E26813571,frameless.htm</ref>

In 1981, ], a ] and Vietnam War veteran, was convicted and sentenced to 70 years in prison for seditious conspiracy (among other offenses) for his involvement in ] - a ] group that carried out over 130 bombings in the United States. Rivera was tried for being a recruiter and bomb-making trainer.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Sheppard|first1=Nathaniel Jr.|last2=Times|first2=Special To the New York|date=1981-07-25|title=SON OF REAGAN TERMED THE TARGET OF TERRORIST PLOT (Published 1981)|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/25/us/son-of-reagan-termed-the-target-of-terrorist-plot.html|access-date=2021-01-07|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> In 1999, he was among the 16 Puerto Rican nationalists offered conditional clemency by U.S. President ] in 1999, but he rejected the offer.<ref name="greenleft.org.au">Steven Katsineris. ''Green Left Weekly''. Issue 879. 15 May 2011. Retrieved 22 March 2012.</ref><ref> Chicago Tribune. p. 49. 8 September 1999.</ref> Then-Congressman, now ] ] stated that "the primary reason that López Rivera did not accept the clemency offer extended to him in 1999 was because it had not also been extended to certain fellow Puerto Rico independence movement prisoners, including Mr. ]".<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140223183708/http://pierluisi.house.gov/sites/pierluisi.house.gov/files/2.21.13%20Rep.%20Pierluisi%20Letter%20to%20President%20Obama%20Regarding%20Oscar%20Lopez%20Rivera.pdf |date=23 February 2014 }} Pedro L. Perluisi. U.S. House of Representatives. 21 February 2013. Page 3. Retrieved 12 December 2013.</ref> Torres was released from prison in July 2010. In January 2017, President ] commuted López Rivera's sentence; he was released May 2017, having served 36 years in prison.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Fitzsimmons|first=Emma Graves|date=2011-02-11|title=Behind a Push for Parole in Chicago, a Prisoner's Old Neighborhood (Published 2011)|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/us/11chicago.html|access-date=2021-01-07|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

In 1987, ] were indicted by a federal grand jury for seditious conspiracy between July 1983 and March 1985.<ref name="coates1987">{{cite web |last1=Coates |first1=james |title=U.S. Aims to Break Neo-Nazis|date=April 26, 1987 |url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1987-04-26-8701310835-story.html |website=www.chicagotribune.com |publisher=] |access-date=March 25, 2022}}</ref> Some alleged conspirators were serving time for overt acts, such as the crimes committed by ] - bank robbery and the assassination of ]. Others, such as ] and ], were charged for their speech seen as spurring on the overt acts by the others. In April 1988, a federal jury in Arkansas acquitted all the accused of charges of seditious conspiracy.<ref>. Anti-Defamation League (ADL). {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111219220144/http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/beam.asp |date=19 December 2011 }}. Retrieved 19 September 2015.</ref> Some still had to serve lengthy prison sentences on other charges, albeit one of the witnesses at the trial, ], would later ] in 2014.

On 1 October 1995, ] and nine others were convicted of ] after the ].<ref>, ''The New York Times'', 2 October 1995.</ref>

Laura Berg, a nurse at a ] hospital in ], was investigated for sedition in September 2005 after writing a letter to the editor of a local newspaper, accusing several national leaders of criminal negligence.<ref>. {{webarchive|url=https://swap.stanford.edu/20080725074500/http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16438 |date=25 July 2008 }}, ''First Amendment Center'' (8 February 2006), ]</ref><ref>, ''Alibi.com'', 9–15 February 2006</ref><ref>, ''Alibi.com'', 9–15 March 2006</ref> Though their action was later deemed unwarranted by the director of Veteran Affairs, local human resources personnel took it upon themselves to request an ] investigation. Ms. Berg was represented by the ].<ref>, ], 31 January 2006</ref> Charges were dropped in 2006.<ref>{{Cite magazine|last=Weigel |first=David |date=25 April 2006 |title=Treason of the Clerks |magazine=] |url=http://www.reason.com/news/show/117345.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061221144751/https://reason.com/news/show/117345.html |archive-date=21 December 2006 }}</ref>

On 28 March 2010, nine members of the ] ] militia were arrested and charged with crimes including seditious conspiracy.<ref>. ADL</ref> In August 2012, U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts dismissed all serious charges against the remaining defendants, including sedition, and rebuked prosecutors for bringing the case. One man, Jacob Ward, was found not competent to stand trial. Three of the men, Joshua John Clough, David Brian Stone Sr., the leader of the group, and his son Joshua Stone, pleaded guilty to weapons charges.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-hutaree/three-hutaree-militia-members-sentenced-in-detroit-to-time-served-idUSBRE8770ZQ20120808 |title=Three Hutaree Militia Members Sentenced in Detroit to Time Served |work=Reuters |date=8 August 2012 |access-date=2 February 2019 }}</ref>

On 13 January 2022, eleven members or associates of the militia group ], including founder ], were charged with seditious conspiracy for their involvement with the ].<ref>, ''Associated Press''</ref> In 2022, three of the charged Oath Keepers pled guilty to the crime, becoming the first convictions since 1995.<ref>, ''Department of Justice''</ref> On 29 November 2022, ], after pleading not guilty in January 2022, was convicted of seditious conspiracy, becoming the first person convicted by a jury of the crime in 27 years.<ref>, ''The Washington Post''</ref><ref>, ''Associated Press''</ref> On 23 January 2023, four additional Oath Keepers were found guilty.<ref>, ''Department of Justice''</ref>

On 6 June, 2022, five members or associates of the militia group ], including the former chairman, ], were indicted for seditious conspiracy for their involvement in the ].<ref>, ''Associated Press''</ref>


====Military==== ====Military====
Sedition is a punishable offense under the United States ], Article 94.<ref></ref> Sedition is a punishable offense under Article 94 of the ].<ref>. Law.cornell.edu. Retrieved 19 September 2015.</ref>

==Civil law jurisdictions==


== Civil law jurisdictions ==
===Germany=== ===Germany===
], a legal concept unique to ], is sometimes loosely translated as sedition.<ref></ref> {{Lang|de|]}} ("incitement of the people") is a legal concept in Germany and some Nordic countries. It is sometimes loosely translated as sedition,<ref>. Linguee.de (13 November 2006). Retrieved 19 September 2015.</ref> although the law bans the incitement of hatred against a segment of the population such as a particular race or religion.

===Spain===
After the ] some of the leaders of the ] were charged with several criminal offences, notably ] and sedition. An offence similar to the Spanish ] of rebellion did not exist in Germany and the ] against ] was withdrawn, allowing him to remain in Belgium. Other leaders who were convicted of sedition received 9–13 years in prison as established in the ] by a unanimous sentence of the Spanish Supreme Court during the October 2019 trial.<ref name="auto">{{cite web|url=https://www.elmundo.es/espana/2019/10/12/5da16fe4fdddfffca98b47d3.html|title=Sentencia del procés: El Supremo acuerda condenar de forma unánime por sedición a los líderes del 1-O|date=12 October 2019|lang=es|website=ELMUNDO}}</ref>{{full citation needed|date=December 2020}}.

In 2022, it was removed from the ],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://es.euronews.com/2022/12/22/el-senado-de-espana-aprueba-la-derogacion-del-delito-de-sedicion-y-rebajas-por-el-de-malve |title=El Senado de España aprueba la derogación del delito de sedición y rebajas por el de malversación |date=22 December 2022 |lang=es |website=Euronews}}</ref> being replaced with the new lesser-sentence "aggravated public disorder" offense.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://apnews.com/article/politics-spain-b24b64fd2b9d2d57c42e0a1652e6951f |title=Spanish govt reforms sedition law in nod to Catalan allies |date=22 December 2022 |lang=en |website=Associated Press}}</ref>


== See also == ==See also==
{{col div|colwidth=20em}}
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]<!--per WP:HOWTODAB-->
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
{{div col end}}


== Notes == ==References==
===Citations===
{{Reflist|30em}}


===Sources===
{{reflist|2}}
* {{cite web|url=http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/cpCrimeofLibel.htm|title=Consultation Paper on The Crime of Libel|date=August 1991|publisher=Law Reform Commission|access-date=11 May 2016|location=Dublin}}


== References == ==Further reading==
* Breight, Curtis, C. ''Surveillance, militarism and drama in the Elizabethan Era'', Macmillan 1996: London.{{ISBN?}}
{{wikinewspar|Auckland man convicted of sedition}}
* {{cite web|url=http://www.law.gov.au/agd/Department/Publications/publications/ICCPR3/articles/article20.pdf |title=A synopsis of the Australian sedition laws |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051031123750/http://www.law.gov.au/agd/Department/Publications/publications/ICCPR3/articles/article20.pdf |archive-date=31 October 2005 }}


==External links==
{{refbegin}}
*{{wiktionary-inline}}
* Breight, Curtis, C. ''Surveillance, militarism and drama in the Elizabethan Era'', Macmillian 1996: London.
*{{Wikiquote-inline}}
* {{PDFlink|}}
{{refend}}


{{Types of crime}}
]
{{History of English criminal law}}
]
{{Media manipulation}}
]
{{Portal bar|Freedom of speech|Society|Politics|Law|Journalism}}
{{Authority control}}


] ]
] ]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 17:09, 10 December 2024

Incitement of rebellion This article is about the legal term. For other uses, see Sedition (disambiguation). Not to be confused with sedation. "Seditionist" redirects here. For the early 20th century Mexican-American rebel organization, see Plan of San Diego.

Criminal law
Elements
Scope of criminal liability
Severity of offense
Inchoate offenses
Offense against the person
Sexual offenses
Crimes against property
Crimes against justice
Crimes against the public
Crimes against animals
Crimes against the state
Defenses to liability
Other common-law areas
Portals

Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech or organization, that tends toward rebellion against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or insurrection against, established authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interest of sedition.

Because sedition is overt, it is typically not considered a subversive act, and the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary by jurisdiction.

Roman origin

In the later Roman Republic, seditio (lit. 'going apart') referred to the offence of collective disobedience toward a magistrate, which included both military mutiny and civilian mob action. Leading or instigating seditio was punishable by death. Civil seditio became frequent during the political crisis of the first century BCE, as populist politicians sought to check the privileged classes by appealing to public assemblies. The Julio-Claudian emperors addressed this situation by abolishing elections and other duties of the assemblies. Under Tiberius the crime of seditio was subsumed in the law of majestas, which prohibited any utterance against the dignity of the emperor.

Seditio has often been proposed as the offence for which Jesus was crucified, as described in Luke 23:14: "inciting the people to rebellion" (Greek: ἀποστρέφοντα τὸν λαόν, "leading the people astray").

History in common law jurisdictions

The term sedition in its modern meaning first appeared in the Elizabethan Era (c. 1590) as the "notion of inciting by words or writings disaffection towards the state or constituted authority". The law developed in the Court of Star Chamber, relying on longstanding scandalum magnatum statutes and a broad repressive act of Mary I against literature that contained "the encouraging, stirring or moving of any insurrection". That seditious statements were true was no defence, but rather an aggravating factor, since true statements were all the more potent. After the Star Chamber's dissolution, enforcement continued in the courts of assize and quarter sessions.

Three classes of seditious offence were commonly charged: "seditious words" manifested by speaking, "seditious libel" by writing or publishing, and "seditious conspiracy" by active plotting. Although England adopted the name of the offence from Roman-derived civil law, it did not rely on the jurisprudence.

Australia

Main article: Australian sedition law

Australia's sedition laws were amended in anti-terrorism legislation passed on 6 December 2005, updating definitions and increasing penalties.

In late 2006, the Commonwealth Government, under the Prime-Ministership of John Howard proposed plans to amend Australia's Crimes Act 1914, introducing laws that meant artists and writers may be jailed for up to seven years if their work was considered seditious or inspired sedition either deliberately or accidentally. Opponents of these laws have suggested that they could be used against dissent that may be seen as legitimate.

In 2006, the then Australian Attorney-General Philip Ruddock had rejected calls by two reports—from a Senate committee and the Australian Law Reform Commission—to limit the sedition provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 by requiring proof of intention to cause disaffection or violence. He had also brushed aside recommendations to curtail new clauses outlawing "urging conduct" that "assists" an "organization or country engaged in armed hostilities" against the Australian military.

These laws were amended in Australia on 19 September 2011. The 'sedition' clauses were repealed and replaced with 'urging violence'.

Canada

In Canada, sedition, which includes speaking seditious words, publishing a seditious libel, and being party to a seditious conspiracy, is an indictable offense, for which the maximum punishment is of fourteen years' imprisonment. For military personnel, Section 82 of the National Defence Act cites Seditious Offences as advocating governmental change by force, punishable by imprisonment for life or to less. Service offences up to two years imprisonment are served in a Military prison, followed by transfer to a penitentiary for the remainder of the sentence.

During World War II, Camillien Houde campaigned against conscription. On 2 August 1940, Houde publicly urged the men of Quebec to ignore the national registration measure introduced by the federal government. Three days later, he was placed under arrest by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on charges of sedition, and then confined without trial in internment camps in Petawawa, Ontario and Ripples, New Brunswick until 1944. Upon his release on 18 August 1944, he was greeted by a cheering crowd of 50,000 Montrealers, and won back his job as Montreal mayor in 1944's civic election.

Hong Kong

This section's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. The reason given is: Sedition in Cap. 200 replaced by offence under Safeguarding National Security Ordinance. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (March 2024)

A Sedition Ordinance had existed in the territory since 1970, which was subsequently consolidated into the Crimes Ordinance in 1972. According to the Crimes Ordinance, a seditious intention is an intention to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the person of government, to excite inhabitants of Hong Kong to attempt to procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any other matter in Hong Kong as by law established, to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Hong Kong, to raise discontent or disaffection amongst inhabitants of Hong Kong, to promote feelings of ill-will and enmity between different classes of the population of Hong Kong, to incite persons to violence, or to counsel disobedience to law or to any lawful order. Sedition is punishable by a fine of HK$5,000 and imprisonment for 2 years, and further offences are punishable by imprisonment for 3 years.

Article 23 of the Basic Law requires the special administrative region to enact laws prohibiting any act that be said of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China. The National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill was tabled in early 2003 to replace the existing laws regarding treason and sedition, and to introduce new laws to prohibit secessionist and subversive acts and theft of state secrets, and to prohibit political organizations from establishing overseas ties. The bill was shelved following massive opposition from the public.

The National Security Law, enacted on 30 June 2020, contains articles prohibiting secession and subversion against the Central Government and the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Both charges may carry penalty up to life imprisonment. Notably, Hong Kong's National Security Law was drafted by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, and passed by the National People's Congress, as part of the Annex III the Basic Law. This law was written in Mainland China's civil law as opposed to Hong Kong's common law traditions.

India

Main article: Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code

In 2003, the Vishva Hindu Parishald (VHP) general secretary, Praveen Togadia, was sought to be charged with sedition for allegedly waging a war against the elected government and taking part in anti-national activity.

In 2010, writer Arundhati Roy was sought to be charged with sedition for her comments on Kashmir and Maoists. Two individuals have been charged with sedition since 2007. Binayak Sen, an Indian doctor and public health specialist, and activist was found guilty of sedition. He is national Vice-President of the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL). On 24 December 2010, the Additional Sessions and District Court Judge B.P Varma Raipur found Binayak Sen, Naxal ideologue Narayan Sanyal and Kolkata businessman Piyush Guha, guilty of sedition for helping the Maoists in their fight against the state. They were sentenced to life imprisonment, but he got bail in Supreme Court on 16 April 2011.

On 10 September 2012, Aseem Trivedi, a political cartoonist, was sent to judicial custody till 24 September 2012 on charges of sedition over a series of cartoons against corruption. Trivedi was accused of uploading "ugly and obscene" content to his website, also accused of insulting the Constitution during an anti-corruption protest in Mumbai in 2011. Trivedi's arrest under sedition has been heavily criticised in India. The Press Council of India termed it a "stupid" move.

In February 2016, JNU student union president Kanhaiya Kumar was arrested on charges of Sedition & raising voice for the Tukde Tukde Gang under section 124-A of Indian Penal Code (which was part of the sedition laws implemented by the British Rule). His arrest raised political turmoil in the country with academicians and activists marching and protesting against this move by the government. He was released on interim bail on 2 March 2016 for a lack of conclusive evidence. On 13 January 2019, The Delhi Police filed a chargesheet on Monday against former Jawaharlal Nehru University Students' Union (JNUSU) president Kanhaiya Kumar and others in a sedition case lodged in 2016.

On 17 August 2016, Amnesty International India was booked in a case of "sedition" and "promoting enmity" by Bengaluru police. A complaint was filed by ABVP, an all India student organization affiliated to the Hindu Nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.

In September 2018, Divya Spandana, the Congress Social Media chief was booked for sedition for calling Narendra Modi, the prime minister of India, a thief.

On 10 January 2019, a sedition case was registered suo-motto against Hiren Gohain and two others for their remarks against the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill. Gohain called the move "a desperate attempt by a cornered government".

On February 13, 2020, a sedition case was registered against Disha Ravi a climate activist, by the Delhi Police for allegedly trying to incite perpetuate violence and defame India with regards to her support of the farmers protest.

A sedition case was filed against Shashi Tharoor, journalist Rajdeep Sardesai and 5 other journalists by Noida Police for allegedly instigating violence and spreading misinformation over a series of tweets during the violence from a tractor rally on republic day on 26 January in New Delhi.

As of May 2022, Supreme Court of India has put sedition law on hold and ordered the government to not book further cases under the same.

Sedition as defined under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code has been replaced by Section 147 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Ireland

Article 40.6.1° (i) of the 1937 Constitution of Ireland guaranteed the right to freedom of expression, subject to several constraints, among them:

The publication or utterance of seditious or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

Advocates for freedom of speech have argued that this constraint ought to be removed; any constitutional amendment requires a referendum. The thirty-seventh amendment of the constitution removed the offence of blasphemy.

The law of the Republic of Ireland since the 1922 independence of the Irish Free State inherited earlier common law principles based on English law. The crime of seditious libel was presumed to persist, although last prosecuted in 1901. After the common law offence of blasphemous libel was ruled in 1999 to be incompatible with the constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech, jurists argued that seditious libel was similarly unconstitutional. Both blasphemous libel and seditious libel were abolished by the Defamation Act 2009, which also created new crime of "publication or utterance of blasphemous matter" to fulfil the constitutional requirement with regard to blasphemy. No new offence was created for sedition in 2009; this was in line with the recommendations of a 1991 consultation paper on libel by the Law Reform Commission (LRC) on the basis that several statutes define offences which are tantamount to sedition.

The Offences against the State Act 1939 created the offences of making, distributing, and possessing a "seditious document". The LRC suggests that "sedition", left undefined by the constitution, might be implicitly defined by the 1939 act's definition of a "seditious document" as one:

  1. consisting of or containing matter calculated or tending to undermine the public order or the authority of the State, or
  2. which alleges, implies, or suggests or is calculated to suggest that the government functioning under the Constitution is not the lawful government of the State or that there is in existence in the State any body or organization not functioning under the Constitution which is entitled to be recognised as being the government of the country, or
  3. which alleges, implies, or suggests or is calculated to suggest that the military forces maintained under the Constitution are not the lawful military forces of the State, or that there is in existence in the State a body or organization not established and maintained by virtue of the Constitution which is entitled to be recognised as a military force, or
  4. in which words, abbreviations, or symbols referable to a military body are used in referring to an unlawful organization

These provisions were largely aimed at Irish republican legitimatists who believed the 1922 Free State was a usurpation of the Irish Republic proclaimed in 1916 and again in 1919. The fourth provision made the use of the names "Irish Republican Army" and "Óglaigh na hÉireann" seditious as they were regarded as rightfully used by the Irish Defense Forces. The LRC notes that advocating violence is not essential for a document to be seditious.

The LRC also notes that Section 1A of the Broadcasting Authority Act 1960 (inserted in 1976) prohibited broadcasting of "anything which may reasonably be regarded as being likely to promote, or incite to, crime or as tending to undermine the authority of the State". The 1960 act has since been replaced by the Broadcasting Act 2009, section 39 of which obliges broadcaster not to broadcast "anything which may reasonably be regarded as causing harm or offense, or as being likely to promote, or incite to, crime or as tending to undermine the authority of the State".

Malaysia

Main article: Sedition Act (Malaysia)

Mauritius

The sedition law is based on Article 283 of the Criminal Code which was enacted in 1838.

New Zealand

Sedition charges were not uncommon in New Zealand early in the 20th century. For instance, the future Prime Minister Peter Fraser had been convicted of sedition in his youth for arguing against conscription during World War I, and was imprisoned for a year. Perhaps ironically, Fraser re-introduced the conscription of troops as the Prime Minister during World War II.

In New Zealand's first sedition trial in decades, Tim Selwyn was convicted of sedition (section 83 of the Crimes Act 1961) on 8 June 2006. Shortly after, in September 2006, the New Zealand Police laid a sedition charge against a Rotorua youth, who was also charged with threatening to kill. The police withdrew the sedition charge when the youth agreed to plead guilty on the other charge.

In March 2007, Mark Paul Deason, the manager of a tavern near the University of Otago, was charged with seditious intent although he was later granted diversion when he pleaded guilty to publishing a document which encourages public disorder. Deason ran a promotion for his tavern that offered one litre of beer for one litre of petrol where at the end of the promotion, the prize would have been a couch soaked in the petrol. It is presumed the intent was for the couch to be burned—a popular university student prank. Police also applied for Deason's liquor license to be revoked.

Following a recommendation from the New Zealand Law Commission, the New Zealand government announced on 7 May 2007 that the sedition law would be repealed. The Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Act 2007 was passed on 24 October 2007, and entered into force on 1 January 2008.

Russell Campbell made a documentary regarding conscientious objectors in New Zealand called Sedition.

Singapore

Main article: Sedition Act (Singapore)

United Kingdom

See also: Sedition Act 1661

Sedition was a common law offence in the UK. James Fitzjames Stephen's "Digest of the Criminal Law" stated that:

... a seditious intention is an intention to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against the person of His Majesty, his heirs or successors, or the government and constitution of the United Kingdom, as by law established, or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice, or to excite His Majesty's subjects to attempt otherwise than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in Church or State by law established, or to incite any person to commit any crime in disturbance of the peace, or to raise discontent or disaffection amongst His Majesty's subjects, or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of such subjects. An intention to show that His Majesty has been misled or mistaken in his measures, or to point out errors or defects in the government or constitution as by law established, with a view to their reformation, or to excite His Majesty's subjects to attempt by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Church or State by law established, or to point out, in order to secure their removal, matters which are producing, or have a tendency to produce, feelings of hatred and ill-will between classes of His Majesty's subjects, is not a seditious intention.

Stephen in his History of the Criminal Law of England accepted the view that a seditious libel was nothing short of a direct incitement to disorder and violence. He stated that the modern view of the law was plainly and fully set out by Littledale J. in Collins. In that case the jury were instructed that they could convict of seditious libel only if they were satisfied that the defendant "meant that the people should make use of physical force as their own resource to obtain justice, and meant to excite the people to take the power in to their own hands, and meant to excite them to tumult and disorder".

The last prosecution for sedition in the United Kingdom was in 1972, when three people were charged with seditious conspiracy and uttering seditious words for attempting to recruit people to travel to Northern Ireland to fight in support of Republicans. The seditious conspiracy charge was dropped, but the men received suspended sentences for uttering seditious words and for offences against the Public Order Act 1936.

In 1977, a Law Commission working paper recommended that the common law offence of sedition in England and Wales be abolished. They said that they thought that this offence was redundant and that it was not necessary to have any offence of sedition. However this proposal was not implemented until 2009, when sedition and seditious libel (as common law offences) were abolished in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland by section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, with effect from 12 January 2010.

In Scotland, section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 abolished the common law offences of sedition and leasing-making with effect from 28 March 2011.

Sedition by an alien is still an offence under section 3 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919, punishable by up to three months of imprisonment if convicted summarily, or up to ten years of imprisonment if convicted on indictment.

United States

See also: Seditious conspiracy

Civilian

The charge of seditious libel for true statements was weakened, but not abolished, in the 1735 New York case of Crown v. John Peter Zenger. Zenger had published attacks on Governor William Cosby that were well received in the province. The Attorney General charged him by criminal information, bypassing the grand jury process, and Zenger was acquitted by a trial jury.

President John Adams signed into law the Sedition Act of 1798, which set out punishments of up to two years of imprisonment for "opposing or resisting any law of the United States" or writing or publishing "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the President or the U.S. Congress (though not the office of the Vice-President, then occupied by Adams' political opponent Thomas Jefferson). This Act of Congress was allowed to expire in 1801 after Jefferson's election to the Presidency; Jefferson pardoned those still serving sentences, and fines were repaid by the government. This law was never appealed to the United States Supreme Court (which had not yet established its power to invalidate laws passed by Congress granted in Marbury v. Madison) but opponents claimed it was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Political cartoon made to look like a reward poster for the apprehension of Jesus Christ
Political cartoon by Art Young, The Masses, 1917

In the Espionage Act of 1917, Section 3 made it a federal crime, punishable by up to 20 years of imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000, to willfully spread false news of the United States Army or Navy with an intent to disrupt its operations, to foment mutiny in their ranks, or to obstruct recruiting. This Act of Congress was amended by the Sedition Act of 1918, which expanded the scope of the Espionage Act to any statement criticizing the Government of the United States. These laws were upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1919 decisions Schenck v. United States (concerning distribution of flyers urging men to resist the draft) and Abrams v. United States (concerning leaflets urging cessation of weapons production). Schenck led to the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" explanation of the limits of free speech. The laws were largely repealed in 1921, leaving laws forbidding foreign espionage in the United States and allowing military censorship of sensitive material.

In 1940, the Alien Registration Act, or "Smith Act", was passed, which made it a federal crime to advocate or to teach the desirability of overthrowing the United States Government, or to be a member of any organization which does the same. It was often used against communist party organizations. This Act was invoked in three major cases, one of which against the Socialist Worker's Party in Minneapolis in 1941, resulting in 23 convictions, and again in what became known as the Great Sedition Trial of 1944 in which a number of pro-Nazi figures were indicted but released when the prosecution ended in a mistrial. Also, a series of trials of 140 leaders of the Communist Party USA also relied upon the terms of the "Smith Act"—beginning in 1949—and lasting until 1957. Although the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the convictions of 11 CPUSA leaders in 1951 in Dennis v. United States, that same Court reversed itself in 1957 in the case of Yates v. United States, by ruling that teaching an ideal, no matter how harmful it may seem, does not equal advocating or planning its implementation. Although unused since at least 1961, the "Smith Act" remains a federal law.

There was, however, a brief attempt to use the sedition laws, as defined by the Sedition Act of 1918 amendments to the Espionage Act of 1917, after socialist leagues in America distributed leaflets calling for resisting the draft. Those amendments were deemed incompatible with freedom of speech under American law, in spite of the exceptional circumstances that led to those laws, against protesters of the Vietnam War. On 17 October 1967, two demonstrators, while engaged in a sit-in at the Army Induction Center in Oakland, California, were arrested and charged with sedition by a deputy U.S. Marshal. U.S. Attorney Cecil Poole changed the charge to trespassing. Poole said, "three guys reaching up and touching the leg of an inductee, and that's conspiracy to commit sedition? That's ridiculous!" The marshals were in the process of stepping on the demonstrators as they attempted to enter the building, and the demonstrators were trying to protect themselves from the marshals' feet. Attorney Poole later added, "We'll decide what to prosecute, not marshals." This decision drew the ire of California Senator George Murphy, who would later block Poole's confirmation to a federal judgeship in response.

In 1981, Oscar López Rivera, a Puerto Rican nationalist and Vietnam War veteran, was convicted and sentenced to 70 years in prison for seditious conspiracy (among other offenses) for his involvement in FALN - a Puerto Rican independence group that carried out over 130 bombings in the United States. Rivera was tried for being a recruiter and bomb-making trainer. In 1999, he was among the 16 Puerto Rican nationalists offered conditional clemency by U.S. President Bill Clinton in 1999, but he rejected the offer. Then-Congressman, now Governor of Puerto Rico Pedro Pierluisi stated that "the primary reason that López Rivera did not accept the clemency offer extended to him in 1999 was because it had not also been extended to certain fellow Puerto Rico independence movement prisoners, including Mr. (Carlos Alberto) Torres". Torres was released from prison in July 2010. In January 2017, President Barack Obama commuted López Rivera's sentence; he was released May 2017, having served 36 years in prison.

In 1987, fourteen white supremacists were indicted by a federal grand jury for seditious conspiracy between July 1983 and March 1985. Some alleged conspirators were serving time for overt acts, such as the crimes committed by The Order - bank robbery and the assassination of Alan Berg. Others, such as Louis Beam and Richard Butler, were charged for their speech seen as spurring on the overt acts by the others. In April 1988, a federal jury in Arkansas acquitted all the accused of charges of seditious conspiracy. Some still had to serve lengthy prison sentences on other charges, albeit one of the witnesses at the trial, Frazier Glenn Miller Jr., would later kill three people in shootings at Jewish community centers in 2014.

On 1 October 1995, Omar Abdel-Rahman and nine others were convicted of seditious conspiracy after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Laura Berg, a nurse at a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in New Mexico, was investigated for sedition in September 2005 after writing a letter to the editor of a local newspaper, accusing several national leaders of criminal negligence. Though their action was later deemed unwarranted by the director of Veteran Affairs, local human resources personnel took it upon themselves to request an FBI investigation. Ms. Berg was represented by the ACLU. Charges were dropped in 2006.

On 28 March 2010, nine members of the Hutaree Christian Patriot militia were arrested and charged with crimes including seditious conspiracy. In August 2012, U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts dismissed all serious charges against the remaining defendants, including sedition, and rebuked prosecutors for bringing the case. One man, Jacob Ward, was found not competent to stand trial. Three of the men, Joshua John Clough, David Brian Stone Sr., the leader of the group, and his son Joshua Stone, pleaded guilty to weapons charges.

On 13 January 2022, eleven members or associates of the militia group Oath Keepers, including founder Stewart Rhodes, were charged with seditious conspiracy for their involvement with the January 6 United States Capitol attack. In 2022, three of the charged Oath Keepers pled guilty to the crime, becoming the first convictions since 1995. On 29 November 2022, Rhodes, after pleading not guilty in January 2022, was convicted of seditious conspiracy, becoming the first person convicted by a jury of the crime in 27 years. On 23 January 2023, four additional Oath Keepers were found guilty.

On 6 June, 2022, five members or associates of the militia group Proud Boys, including the former chairman, Enrique Tarrio, were indicted for seditious conspiracy for their involvement in the January 6 United States Capitol attack.

Military

Sedition is a punishable offense under Article 94 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Civil law jurisdictions

Germany

Volksverhetzung ("incitement of the people") is a legal concept in Germany and some Nordic countries. It is sometimes loosely translated as sedition, although the law bans the incitement of hatred against a segment of the population such as a particular race or religion.

Spain

After the 2017–18 Spanish constitutional crisis some of the leaders of the Catalan independence movement were charged with several criminal offences, notably rebellion and sedition. An offence similar to the Spanish offence of rebellion did not exist in Germany and the European Arrest Warrant against Carles Puigdemont was withdrawn, allowing him to remain in Belgium. Other leaders who were convicted of sedition received 9–13 years in prison as established in the Spanish Penal Code by a unanimous sentence of the Spanish Supreme Court during the October 2019 trial..

In 2022, it was removed from the Spanish Criminal Code, being replaced with the new lesser-sentence "aggravated public disorder" offense.

See also

References

Citations

  1. Berger, Adolf (1953). Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law.
  2. ^ Schnabel, Eckhard (2018). Jesus in Jerusalem: The Last Days.
  3. Cook, John Granger (2018). Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World.
  4. C. Breight (1996). Surveillance, Militarism and Drama in the Elizabethan Era. Springer. pp. 89–90. ISBN 978-0-230-37302-0.
  5. ^ Manning, Roger B. (1980). "The Origins of the Doctrine of Sedition". Albion. 12 (2): 99–121. doi:10.2307/4048812. JSTOR 4048812.
  6. Stephen, James Fitzjames (1883). A History of the Criminal Law of England. Vol. 2.
  7. Satire used to counter new sedition laws, ABC's Lateline transcript, 24 October 2006
  8. "Artists' freedom of expression protected with sedition deletion in 'National Security Legislation Amendment Act 2010'". National Association for the Visual Arts Ltd. Archived from the original on 31 December 2012. Retrieved 10 October 2011.
  9. Branch, Legislative Services (1 August 2019). "Consolidated federal laws of canada, National Defence Act". laws-lois.justice.gc.ca.
  10. "St. Petersburg Times". Google News Archive.
  11. "The Windsor Daily Star". Google News Archive.
  12. McKenna, Brian (4 March 2015). "Camillien Houde". The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved 29 January 2018.
  13. Cap 200 Long title (Crimes Ordinance). Government of Hong Kong. Retrieved 19 September 2015.
  14. Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) § 9
  15. Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) § 10(1)
  16. Chapter 2, Basic Law Archived 29 July 2010 at the Wayback Machine. Government of Hong Kong. Retrieved 19 September 2015.
  17. "Sedition charge against Togadia". The Times of India. TNN. 17 April 2003. Retrieved 11 June 2021.
  18. Nilanjana Bhaduri Jha (17 April 2003). "Will sedition charge stick on Togadia?". The Times of India. Retrieved 11 June 2021.
  19. ^ "Sedition and treason: the difference between the two". News18. IBNLive.com. 11 September 2012. Retrieved 5 March 2021.
  20. "Binayak Sen's mother breaks down on hearing HC verdict". One India. 10 February 2011. Archived from the original on 20 January 2012. Retrieved 5 March 2021.
  21. It's the first step towards justice, says Sen Release Committee. Indian Express (16 April 2011).
  22. Cartoonist Aseem Trivedi sent to judicial custody, govt faces flak Archived 12 September 2012 at the Wayback Machine. Hindustantimes.com. Retrieved 19 September 2015.
  23. Mathur, Aneesha (3 March 2016). "JNU row: Kanhaiya Kumar gets bail and a lesson on thoughts that 'infect… (like) gangrene'". The Indian Express. Retrieved 29 January 2018.
  24. "JNU case: Delhi Police charge Kanhaiya Kumar, others with sedition". The Times of India. 14 January 2019.
  25. Chhibber, Maneesh (16 August 2016). "Amnesty booked for sedition: Supreme Court against applying law without sufficient cause". The Indian Express. Retrieved 30 August 2022.
  26. "Hours after sedition case, Congress' Divya Spandana again tweets 'PM Chor Hai'". Deccan Chronicle. Mumbai. 27 September 2018. Retrieved 9 October 2018.
  27. "Sedition charges absurd and grotesque: Hiren Gohain". The Times of India.
  28. SAYEED, VIKHAR AHMED (15 February 2021). "Disha Ravi, an environmental activist from Bengaluru, arrested by Delhi police and charged with sedition for 'formulation and dissemination' of a toolkit to aid protesting farmers which was shared by Greta Thunberg". Frontline. Retrieved 11 June 2021.
  29. "Conspiracy, sedition: Ruling in Disha Ravi case raises bar for State". The Indian Express. 2 March 2021. Retrieved 11 June 2021.
  30. "What Exactly is the Crime Disha Ravi is Accused Of?". The Wire. Retrieved 11 June 2021.
  31. "Tharoor, Sardesai, Others Booked for Sedition Over R-Day Violence". The Quint. 29 January 2021. Retrieved 30 January 2021.
  32. "Shashi Tharoor, 6 Journalists Face Sedition For Farmers' Protest Posts". NDTV.com. Retrieved 30 January 2021.
  33. "Supreme Court Puts Sedition Law in Abeyance During Government 'Review'". The Wire. 11 May 2022. Retrieved 30 August 2022.
  34. "Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita" (PDF).
  35. "Constitution of Ireland". Irish Statute Book. Retrieved 11 May 2016.
  36. ^ Joint Committee on the Constitution (July 2008). "Article 40.6.1.i – Freedom of Expression" (PDF). First Report. Oireachtas. pp. 41, Sections 2.116, 2.117. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 February 2011. Retrieved 11 May 2016.
  37. ^ Murray, Colin (11 September 2009). "Blasphemy, Sedition and the Defamation Act 2009". Human Rights in Ireland. Archived from the original on 21 April 2016. Retrieved 11 May 2016.
  38. Law Reform Commission 1991, Chapter One
  39. Law Reform Commission 1991, section 75
  40. Forde, Michael; Leonard, David (2013). Constitutional Law of Ireland. A&C Black. pp. 845, section 29.11. ISBN 978-1847667380. Retrieved 11 May 2016.
  41. "Defamation Act 2009". Irish Statute Book. Sections 35, 36. Retrieved 11 May 2016.
  42. Law Reform Commission 1991, sections 215, 216, 217
  43. Law Reform Commission 1991, section 215
  44. "Offences Against the State Act, 1939". Irish Statute Book. Sections 2, 10(1)(c), 12. Retrieved 11 May 2016.
  45. Quinn, Sean E. (2009). Criminal Law in Ireland. Irish Law Publishing. sections 51.102–51.111. ISBN 978-1871509540.
  46. ^ Law Reform Commission 1991, section 82; citing Section 2 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939
  47. "Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1976, Section 3". Irish Statute Book. Retrieved 11 May 2016.
  48. Law Reform Commission 1991, section 216
  49. "Broadcasting Act 2009, Section 39". Irish Statute Book. Retrieved 11 May 2016.
  50. "Judiciary: is it right to revive the old sedition law in Darren Seedeeal's case?". lexpress.mu (in French). 2 May 2022. Retrieved 7 March 2024.
  51. "ANTI-CONSCRIPTION. GREYMOUTH EVENING STAR". paperspast.natlib.govt.nz. 19 April 1917. Retrieved 10 December 2022.
  52. Today in History: 22 December 1916 – Future PM Fraser charged with sedition, nzhistory.net.nz, History Group of the New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage.
  53. Collins, Simon (17 October 2006). "Law advice body wants to scrap crime of sedition". The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 8 November 2011.
  54. Sedition by Example XXII: Christopher Russell, No Right Turn weblog, 28 February 2007
  55. Police move to cancel 'beer-for-petrol' publican's licence, Infonews.co.nz, 11 April 2007
  56. Diversion over petrol-soaked couch promo, Crime.co.nz, 29 March 2007
  57. "Law Commission recommends abolition of seditious offences" (PDF). New Zealand Law Commission. 5 April 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 June 2010.
  58. "Sedition law to be repealed". Radio New Zealand. 7 May 2007. Archived from the original on 18 January 2012. Retrieved 5 May 2007.
  59. "Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Act 2007 No 96, Public Act". New Zealand Legislation.
  60. "New Zealand repeals sedition law". Wikinews. 24 October 2007. Retrieved 24 October 2007.
  61. ^ The Law Commission, "Treason, Sedition and Allied Offences" (Working Paper No.72), paragraphs 78 and 96(6) [1977] EWLC C72, BAILII
  62. "Coroners and Justice Act 2009: Section 73", legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives, 12 November 2009, 2009 c. 25 (s. 73), retrieved 19 September 2015
  63. "Coroners and Justice Act 2009: Section 182", legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives, 12 November 2009, 2009 c. 25 (s. 182), retrieved 19 September 2015
  64. Criminal Justice & Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, section 51. Legislation.gov.uk (6 November 2014). Retrieved 19 September 2015.
  65. Scottish Parliament. The Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (Commencement No. 8, Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2011 as made, from legislation.gov.uk.
  66. "Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919: Section 3", legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives, 23 December 1919, 1919 c. 92 (s. 3), retrieved 25 April 2024
  67. "The Sedition Act of 1798". History, Art & Archives, U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved 29 January 2018.
  68. 3 Charged With Sedition After Oakland Melee The Press Democrat. Santa Rosa, California. 20 October 1967.
  69. San Francisco Chronicle, 21 October 1967, p. 7, UPI – Independent Journal of Marin, 21 October 1967, p. 4
  70. Sheppard, Nathaniel Jr.; Times, Special To the New York (25 July 1981). "SON OF REAGAN TERMED THE TARGET OF TERRORIST PLOT (Published 1981)". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 January 2021.
  71. Steven Katsineris. "Puerto Rico: Free Oscar López Rivera!" Green Left Weekly. Issue 879. 15 May 2011. Retrieved 22 March 2012.
  72. FALN Chicago Tribune. p. 49. 8 September 1999.
  73. Letter from Congressman Pedro L. Pierluisi to President Barack Obama. Archived 23 February 2014 at the Wayback Machine Pedro L. Perluisi. U.S. House of Representatives. 21 February 2013. Page 3. Retrieved 12 December 2013.
  74. Fitzsimmons, Emma Graves (11 February 2011). "Behind a Push for Parole in Chicago, a Prisoner's Old Neighborhood (Published 2011)". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 January 2021.
  75. Coates, james (26 April 1987). "U.S. Aims to Break Neo-Nazis". www.chicagotribune.com. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 25 March 2022.
  76. "Louis Beam". Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Archived 19 December 2011 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 19 September 2015.
  77. Richard Perez-Pena, "The Terror Conspiracy – The Charges – A Gamble Pays Off as the Prosecution Uses an Obscure 19th-Century Law", The New York Times, 2 October 1995.
  78. "VA nurse's letter to newspaper prompts sedition probe". Archived 25 July 2008 at the Stanford Web Archive, First Amendment Center (8 February 2006), Associated Press
  79. "Big Brother is Watching: A letter printed in the Alibi leads to the investigation of a local VA nurse for 'sedition'", Alibi.com, 9–15 February 2006
  80. "Speaking Truth to Power: An interview with Laura Berg", Alibi.com, 9–15 March 2006
  81. "ACLU of New Mexico defends VA employee accused of 'Sedition' over criticism of Bush Administration", ACLU, 31 January 2006
  82. Weigel, David (25 April 2006). "Treason of the Clerks". Reason. Archived from the original on 21 December 2006.
  83. "Hutaree Militia Fact Sheet". ADL
  84. "Three Hutaree Militia Members Sentenced in Detroit to Time Served". Reuters. 8 August 2012. Retrieved 2 February 2019.
  85. Michael Balsamo, Colleen Long, and Alanna Durkin Richer: "Seditious conspiracy: 11 Oath Keepers charged in Jan. 6 riot", Associated Press
  86. "Leader of North Carolina Chapter of Oath Keepers Pleads Guilty to Seditious Conspiracy and Obstruction of Congress for Efforts to Stop Transfer of Power Following 2020 Presidential Election", Department of Justice
  87. Spencer S. Hsu: "Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes pleads not guilty to seditious conspiracy in Jan. 6 attack on Capitol", The Washington Post
  88. Alanna Durkin Richer, Lindsay Whitehurst, and Andrew Harnik: "Oath Keepers' Rhodes guilty of Jan. 6 seditious conspiracy", Associated Press
  89. "Four Oath Keepers Found Guilty of Seditious Conspiracy Related to U.S. Capitol Breach", Department of Justice
  90. Michael Kunzelman and Alanna Durkin Richer: "Proud Boys charged with seditious conspiracy in Capitol riot", Associated Press
  91. Uniform Code of Military Justice. Law.cornell.edu. Retrieved 19 September 2015.
  92. sedition – Deutsch-Übersetzung – Linguee Wörterbuch. Linguee.de (13 November 2006). Retrieved 19 September 2015.
  93. "Sentencia del procés: El Supremo acuerda condenar de forma unánime por sedición a los líderes del 1-O". ELMUNDO (in Spanish). 12 October 2019.
  94. "El Senado de España aprueba la derogación del delito de sedición y rebajas por el de malversación". Euronews (in Spanish). 22 December 2022.
  95. "Spanish govt reforms sedition law in nod to Catalan allies". Associated Press. 22 December 2022.

Sources

Further reading

External links

  • The dictionary definition of sedition at Wiktionary
  • Quotations related to Sedition at Wikiquote
Types of crime
Note: Crimes vary by jurisdiction. Not all types are listed here.
Classes Scales of Justice
Against the person
Against property
  • Arson
  • Arms trafficking
  • Blackmail
  • Bribery
  • Burglary
  • Cybercrime
  • Embezzlement
  • Extortion
  • False pretenses
  • Forgery
  • Fraud
  • Gambling
  • Intellectual property violation
  • Larceny
  • Looting
  • Payola
  • Pickpocketing
  • Possessing stolen property
  • Robbery
  • Smuggling
  • Tax evasion
  • Theft
  • Trespass to land
  • Vandalism
  • Mischief
    • Against the public
  • Apostasy
  • Begging
  • Corruption
  • Censorship violation
  • Dueling
  • Genocide
  • Hostage-taking
  • Insider trading
  • Smuggling
  • Illegal consumption (such as prohibition of drugs, alcohol, and smoking)
  • Miscegenation
  • Piracy
  • Regicide
  • Terrorism
  • Usurpation
  • War crimes
    • Against the state
  • Lèse-majesté
  • Treason
  • Espionage
  • Secession
  • Sedition
  • Subversion
    • Against justice
  • Compounding
  • Malfeasance in office
  • Miscarriage of justice
  • Misprision
  • Obstruction
  • Perjury
  • Perverting the course of justice
    • Against animals
  • Cruelty to animals
  • Poaching
  • Wildlife smuggling
  • Bestiality
    • Sexual offenses
  • Adultery
  • Bigamy
  • Child sexual abuse
  • Cybersex trafficking
  • Fornication
  • Homosexuality
  • Incest
  • Indecent exposure
  • Masturbation
  • Obscenity
  • Prostitution
  • Rape
  • Pederasty
  • Sex trafficking
  • Sexual assault
  • Sexual harassment
  • Sexual slavery
  • Voyeurism
    • Inchoate offenses
  • Attempt
  • Conspiracy
  • Incitement
  • Solicitation
  • WikiSource
  • Wikimedia Commons
  • Wikiquote
  • Wikinews
    • History of English criminal law
    Part of the common law series
    Classes of crimes Scales of justice
    Inchoate offences
    Defences
    Offences against the person or state
    Sexual offences
    Criminal libel and kindred offences
    Offences against property
    Forgery, personation and cheating
    Offences against justice
    Death against family honour
    Criminal behaviour
    Media manipulation
    Context
    Activism
    Advertising
    Censorship and
    Media regulation
    Hoaxing
    Marketing
    News media
    Political campaigning
    Propaganda
    Psychological warfare
    Public relations
    Sales
    Related
    Portals: Categories: