Communist Revolution in Canada?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, real 'schooled'. The Supreme Court of the US says that the statute in question only applies when there is a clear and present danger to the government:

The rule we deduce from these cases is that where an offense is specified by a statute in nonspeech or nonpress terms, a conviction relying upon speech or press as evidence of violation may be sustained only when the speech or publication created a "clear and present danger" of attempting or accomplishing the prohibited crime

And we stated, "[The First] Amendment requires that one be permitted to believe what he will. It requires that one be permitted to advocate what he will unless there is a clear and present danger that a substantial public evil will result therefrom." 339 U.S. at 412.

From the second quote, you can see simply advocating overthrow has not been a crime in the US since, at least, 1951. Has your court countananced your sedition provision with similar language? Obviously the Canadian police do not believe it to be fair to apply to groups like those in the OP, but are they simply engaging in the police veto?

I guess that is what happens when a Canadian fails to realize that all US law is a product of all 3 branches and must be read in the context of judicial precedent.

[notyoueither]

Uhmm, Imran, you were saying that such a statute didn't exist, weren't you?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Fact of the matter is if someone went out and wrote an article saying that Al Queda was right and they should overthrow the government and replace it with an Islamic theocracy, US law would not be able to do anything to them. You are saying Canadian law would require that person to be prosecuted under sedition.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Uhmm, Imran, you were saying that such a statute didn't exist, weren't you?

You said similar statute to one that allows people to be jailed for simply advocating overthrow of the US government. The USC statute does not do so because the SCOTUS has said it doesn't say that (it limited the meaning of its words).

[notyoueither]

I never said these people would be jailed in Canada. In fact I said the opposite. Still, I observed it is against the law. Laws that might be used if they became a more serious threat (actually started to act).

[notyoueither]

You jumped up and down and said how such a law was impossible in the US.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Still, I observed it is against the law

I never said that you said they would be jailed in Canada, I said that you said "Canadian law would require that person to be prosecuted under sedition", which saying 'it is against the law' basically means.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You jumped up and down and said how such a law was impossible in the US.

Currently, it is. If someone tried to prosecute someone for simply backing Al Queda, the prosecution would be struck down in a heartbeat as violating the First Amendment because of a lack of "clear and present danger".

A law for simple symphatizing with Al Queda would be impossible in the law. The USC section has had its meaning limited by the courts so that it couldn't touch simple advocation of a political belief without anything further.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Still, I observed it is against the law

I never said that you said they would be jailed in Canada, I said that you said "Canadian law would require that person to be prosecuted under sedition", which saying 'it is against the law' basically means.

Where did I say what you put in quotes?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is against the law basically means Canadian law would require that person to be prosecuted under sedition. What else does it is against the law mean?

[notyoueither]

You sure squirm well, Imran. or maybe not 'well', but whatever.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm still curious where these laws that allow the government to stifle individuals who are simply exercising their free speech rights without engaging in violent action are. Where is this 'sedition' law that nye seems to be claiming the US has?

Must be a real ***** that I showed you the statute, eh?

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Um... we have this thing called the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which prevents such a law to exist.

Simply speech advocating the overthrow of the US government cannot be outlawed under our Constitution.

Your sedition law is almost exactly what we had in the 50s, which was used to deal with Communists. That law isn't in existance anymore and even though the Supreme Court upheld it back then, the Court, as well as the society, has turned its back on that abhorrent era.

The closest thing is that it is illegal to actually threaten (instead of an idle threat) to kill the President. Then again, if you do that against any regular person, it's assault, so nothing too special with that except for the penalties.

'exactly what we had in the 50s, which was used to deal with Communists. That law isn't in existance anymore and even though the Supreme Court upheld it back then, the Court, as well as the society, has turned its back on that abhorrent era,' Imran?

And what's this about the SC already upholding them?

Which is it?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It is against the law basically means Canadian law would require that person to be prosecuted under sedition. What else does it is against the law mean?

I guess the police and prosecutors have no discretion where you come from then. Is that the case?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Must be a real ***** that I showed you the statute, eh?

I'll ask again. Where are these laws that allow the government to stifle individuals who are simply exercising their free speech rights without engaging in violent action?

I don't think anyone would argue that "clear and present danger" means someone who isn't engaging in any violent action.

Otherwise, where are all the Al Queda backers. Why aren't they in our jails! Oh noes!

That law isn't in existance anymore

It isn't. As you can see, it has gone through numerous amendments because provisions used to nail Communists just for being Communists were declared by the Supreme Court to not fall under "clear and present danger".

And what's this about the SC already upholding them?

Read Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education. Then learn a valuable lesson where courts don't remain static.

Try again, nye, this smacks of desperation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I guess the police and prosecutors have no discretion where you come from then. Is that the case?

So in your world being against the law doesn't mean that the law requires a person to be prosecuted if he violates that law? I didn't know that the police and prosecutors actually wrote the law in your neck of the woods.

What planet do you reside on anyway?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Must be a real ***** that I showed you the statute, eh?

I'll ask again. Where are these laws that allow the government to stifle individuals who are simply exercising their free speech rights without engaging in violent action?

I don't think anyone would argue that "clear and present danger" means someone who isn't engaging in any violent action.

And I'll complete the bit you left out.

Where is this 'sedition' law that nye seems to be claiming the US has?

I've shown you the law that you claim used to exist, but now you claim doesn't really mean anything... even if it does exist.

Try again, nye, this smacks of desperation.

I'm being desperate?

Bwahahahahahahahaha!