1

In this posting I argued for people who have access to classified information to start leaking information. Someone replied saying that my posting is in itself a violation of the law:

You do understand that this post is treason under federal law right? You are calling for an over throw of the government, that's what "Bastille Day" was, the start of the French revolution... your comments are very, very dangerous, and I know for a fact... the secrete service, FBI, NSA and other government agencies are monitoring ALL of these boards and they know your true identity... This is a very, very foolish post, and it is too late to take it down they know where you are... not smart.

  • 2
    Sounds like a classic "the government is watching your every move" conspiracy theorist. – animuson Jun 10 '17 at 4:49
  • 1
    Btw, you should include your actual comment as well. Your reference to Bastille Day in it is mildly inappropriate for what you're actually suggesting. Advocating that people leak information is a far cry from advocating that the government be overthrown, and the context of what you said matters when determining what your intention was. Don't let random Internet trolls take two words out of your entire text and attempt to scare you with them. – animuson Jun 10 '17 at 5:15
2

There is such a law, the Smith Act: 18 USC 2385 (Advocating overthrow of Government), which says in part

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government...

shall be punished. My reading of the offending text is that it states the desirability of an action which some people probably think would result in the overthrow of the US government by force, but does not directly commit the offending act.

In Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, the Supreme Court ruled that

The Smith Act does not prohibit advocacy and teaching of forcible overthrow of the Government as an abstract principle, divorced from any effort to instigate action to that end

Although the court did not rule that the act was unconstitutional, it limited its application to the point of virtual unenforcibility.

Speech can only be limited when it presents a "clear and present danger". As ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444, speech cannot be restricted

except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.