“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; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.”
view the rest of the comments →
[–] trenace 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Do notice that in every case "force" must be involved for anyone to be charged under this.
I hope there will be cases in which conspiracy will be charged, with the group being rather broad and even a single person in the group employing force.
But force does have to be involved.
Just tweeting for a coup without anyone in your group actually using force is not illegal.
[–] Six_Cents 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago (edited ago)
Agreed, but what is the definition of "Force":
Definition of force
My favorite is (2) c - Pretty much every democrat, lefty and media lapdog is guilty of force.
[–] trenace 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
One of the nowhere near enough to know things I've learned from a lot of time with lawyers is that words in the law have to be interpreted as per a hell of a lot of stuff.
Now it MAY be that there really is case law where "use of force" has been nothing but "capacity to persuade" but it sounds a stretch and I'd want to see it before giving credibility to the idea that that is the legal meaning in a context such as this.
If so minor, then why bother repeatedly adding the qualifaction about force. Nearly everyone has some ability to persuade or convince.
[–] NoRoyalty 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
No, idiot. It doesn't. It's implied. And encouraged.