[TheOperator]

Protesting electoral fraud is also absolutely required, even if I am extremely extremely sceptical that it actually happened.

Some of the protests that happened in the civil rights movement were indeed violent although this has been rather aggressively whitewashed in government approved public school classes meant to teach students the way to affect real change is to stand around with signs and sing songs and have racist white police officers beat you until you win (Kings flirting with communism and advocacy of reparations doesn't get much mention either). Ever hear of this guy called Malcolm X who wrote quite a bit about violence, he's definitely not somebody who could be allowed on social media. Race riots happened, people got beaten, some were killed largely by the police (just like in this most recent protest) but also by protesters (just like in this most recent protest). Did this delegitimize the civil rights movement? No, it was a noble movement, people just whitewash and dramatize it instead to prevent any degree of cognitive dissonance, and then compare modern day movements to the whitewashing to whitewash the modern day equivalents.

Back then like today, the degree of violence was greatly exaggerated, disproportionately by the media and by racist segregationist's. Protests are mostly a dull affair filled overwhelmingly with non-violent people and only the exciting bits hit the front pages. The extent of violence by Trump supporters too is greatly exaggerated, mostly by media and their political opponents. If one police officer dies and 4 protestors, the only reasonable reaction is a speech crackdown against those who blame this incident on democrats dubiously. Since obviously cracking down on the free non-violent exchange of ideas and advocacy of peaceful protest is what prevents violence from happening.

Point I'm driving at is that if the entire argument is based around the idea that any violence, or even violent mobs, delegitimizes a large movement than virtually all movements from BLM to the Civil rights movements to... whatever this is.... are delegitimized. Really the issue people have with the Trump supporters, above all, is that they're wrong and unpopular. As such they're a good test for exactly how much people REALLY support freedom of speech and the right to protest a cause that isn't broadly supported.

[weare138]

>Protesting electoral fraud is also absolutely required, even if I am extremely extremely sceptical that it actually happened.

But you can't compare people committing act of violence to perpatuate a lie at the greater expense of society to people protesting for civil rights. And no the people that stormed the Capitol building, which hasn't happened since the war of 1812 and was committed by a hostile foreign nation, were not 'protesting'. Sedition is not a right.

[perl4ever]

>Sedition is not a right

I've been seeing lots of people write things like this very recently. But honestly, when did you start using the word "sedition" and when did the word acquire emotional weight to you, as a dastardly crime? When and how do you think other people got familiar with the word?

If I'm being honest, my association with the word sedition before pretty recently was almost entirely a very dim memory of the Alien and Sedition Acts being mentioned in grade school. And an even dimmer memory that they were unpopular and probably unconstitutional.

It's not that I think it's necessarily wrong to use it, I just feel suddenly surrounded by people who are pretending that we all are used to using it and viscerally being outraged by people who commit it. Which feels weird since I can't remember seeing it in normal conversation in like 30+ years.

Maybe it sounds better than treason, perhaps because treason is a word right wing types like to use?

[djur]

It hasn't been used in normal conversation before recently because we haven't had a significant political movement and officers of the US government who were engaged in acts worthy of the term.

[perl4ever]

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask though, because it was obvious.

Is sedition illegal? Should it be? When did the consensus arise, if it did? The historical laws against sedition are not generally presented in a good light, in school, from what I can tell.

I'm not questioning whether the attack on the Capitol was problematic, but why sedition is the go-to term. I feel like there's an echo of the awkward term "collusion" that eventually allowed people to say there was nobody charged with collusion.

[jacobolus]

Sedition and treason are two different but related concepts/offenses. Sedition is plotting to overthrow the government or encouraging other people to do so. Treason is waging war against the country or helping a war-time enemy. Both can be federal crimes. And a seditious conspiracy can potentially lead to an act of treason if the plot is undertaken.

Here is the law against seditious conspiracy https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

> If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

[perl4ever]

That says "seditious conspiracy", not "sedition". I'm not saying it's wrong to call that "sedition" by extension, if you like, I'm just confused because I didn't get the memo on how the word is being used now.

All my life, "sedition" has meant, as far as I knew, criticism of the government, possibly false criticism. Nor did I know of laws against it since around a hundred years ago or more.

Here is something saying sedition is:

"The federal crime of advocating insurrection against the government through speeches and publications."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sedition

Here is a part of the law that sounds like it's outlawing sedition even though it doesn't actually include the word: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385

The significance, ultimately, is I'm suspicious that someone is pushing this term because they want to turn around and outlaw criticizing the government and say Democrats asked for it. Or, even if nobody has that plan yet, that using the term carelessly could invite it.

[jimmygrapes]

Based on this definition (and ignoring others such as enumerated duties) the Congress has been involved with seditious conspiracy whenever they block passage of a bill. However, since that is part of the job, it's ok. What is NOT ok is for elected officials to incite dissent and encourage blockage of government functions... which many Democrats have been doing in the same way Trump did (via Twitter) for longer than we have had Trump. And which also let to riots with violence, along with occupying and/or destruction of federal and state buildings and property. And encouraged - praised! - by the very politicians crying about it today.

[weare138]

>Is sedition illegal? Should it be?

How are we defining sedition though? Rebelling against society is one thing. I'm an old punk rocker. Did I break laws I didn't agree with? Yes, repeatedly. But I also accepted that, right or wrong, it was my personal choice, I made those decisions myself and if I faced consequences for it they were my consequences to face, not someone else's. There's a difference between sending a message and killing the messenger. I get the over all point you're making but damn what do we call it? This is way past protesting or rebelling against the government and society. We poked the bear but we didn't burn down the entire forest just to spite the bear.

[_y5hn]

Injustice implies good faith, riots unfortunate side effect.

Lies and fraud implies bad faith, riots and coup being end goal.

The intent is different, so it is false equivalence.

[ashayh]

> Protesting electoral fraud is also absolutely required

Sure, if it were real.