“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
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.
[–] Six_Cents ago
Yes, nearly everyone has some ability to persuade or convince and if someone's ability to persuade or convince causes persons to attempt an overthrow of the government via Coup d'état, then that someone should be charged, tried and if convicted, imprisoned per the law.
However, I do agree with you that "force" was probably "meant" as violent force, but that is not the wording used. Therefore, it is plausible that a proficient lawyer could argue that those in the media, politics et al, used their position of authority to force or otherwise persuade or convince peoples that attempting to overthrow the government of the USA was needed and correct. Just sayin'.