Treason, Sedition and the US Bill of Rights In 2018, where are lines drawn between treason, sedition, and constitutionally protected freedoms of speech and assembly? Publishing a neutral, fact-based article on a contentious topic, citing sources and giving each side an opportunity to respond, but which can be construed as portraying the USA in a negative light. Publishing a biased, opinion-based article on a contentious topic, selectively citing sources without giving each side an opportunity to respond, and which intentionally portrays the US in a negative light. Same as 2, but in this case you are working in collaboration with foreign entities and/or agents in support of their goals. Same as 3, but you are being paid or receiving some other concrete consideration. Same as 2, but your activities include organizing groups of other citizens to participate. Same as 4, but you organize groups of other citizens to participate. Same as 5, but beyond publishing, you engage in civil disobedience to subvert the usual rule of law. Same as 6, but beyond publishing, you engage in civil disobedience to subvert the usual rule of law. Same as 7, except activities include rioting, looting or other serious criminal activities. Same as 8, except activities include rioting, looting or other serious criminal activities. Assume that all anti-American sentiment is aligned with a specific foreign nation's interests. Consider each case: the foreign nation is a close ally of the US the foreign nation has neutral relations with the US the foreign nation is a bitter rival with cold relations to the US the foreign nation is in a state of open, declared war with the US
Relevant Law Treason Treason is constitutionally defined as waging war on the United States, or giving aid and comfort to its enemies. The definition doesn't formally say so, but only someone who owes allegiance to the United States (i.e. a U.S. citizen) can be guilty of treason. The federal treason statute states: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. 18 USC Section 2381. The main limitations are in bold. The word &quot;enemy&quot; has a technical meaning in the area of treason and foreign relations, which means a country or insurgent group with whom the United States is at war. Thus, the following are not &quot;enemies&quot; of the United States: the foreign nation is a close ally of the US the foreign nation has neutral relations with the US the foreign nation is a bitter rival with cold relations to the US But, this one is an enemy of the United States: the foreign nation is in a state of open, declared war with the US Hence, a U.S. citizen giving aid and comfort to ISIS (with whom we have a Congressionally authorized war) as it tries to mount a terrorist attack on the U.S. might very well be treason, but assisting Russia (with whom the U.S. is not at war) in assassinating an American would not be. I don't know if North Korea is a current &quot;enemy&quot; of the United States or not. The Korean War is not over, but I don't know if the U.S. declaration of war on North Korea is still in force. It is also a lesser felony to failure to report treason in progress to the authorities, with treason itself defined in essentially the same way. 18 USC Section 2882. Thus, U.S. citizens have a legal duty enforceable with criminal law to affirmatively report treason. Rebellion or insurrection Also rebellion or insurrection is a crime defined as follows: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. 18 USC Section 2383 The bold language greatly restricts the applicability of this crime. This is not something you can really do by yourself, you need to be part of an organized insurgency group actively trying to overthrow the U.S. government by force. Affiliation with a foreign power is irrelevant to this offense. Sedition Sedition (actually seditious conspiracy) is defined as: 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. 18 USC Section 2384. The highlighted portions are the least culpable ones that qualify for the offense of seditious conspiracy, which are subject to some significant case law glosses of interpretation. At a minimum seditious conspiracy must involve defiance of the authority of the United States. Simply committing serious crimes against the United States (e.g assassinating a high government official or blowing up a government building), while acknowledging that the United States is the legitimate government of the United States acting within its authority and not seeking regime change (not just new personnel but a new constitution not adopted by constitutional means), is not sufficient. Your involvement with a foreign power is neither necessary nor sufficient for conduct to be seditious. Advocating the overthrow of the United States government Advocating the overthrow of the United States government is also a crime in some circumstances (subject to significant judicial case law glosses): 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. If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each 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. As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons. 18 USC Section 2385. Collaboration with a foreign power isn't an element of this crime and is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish it. The key limitations and most inclusive provisions are in bold. The First Amendment significantly limits that application of this crime as applied, but it is not unconstitutional in all circumstances. Your Examples Numbers 1-2 would never be crimes of any kind as described and not reading anything else into them. Numbers 3-6 are not illegal per se, but you may be required to register as a foreign agent and these activities may be illegal for someone holding certain government offices. Nothing in 1-6 would constitute treason or sedition or rebellion. Civil disobedience is a description that speaks more to the reason and motive for the action than the action itself so it is hard to say what you mean by 7-8. Somebody could call blowing up the Capitol &quot;civil disobedience&quot; or could mean protesting in violation of a curfew ordinance. Some of those activities could constitute a seditious conspiracy. With respect to 9-10, the acts involved are more clear, but the motive and context remain in doubt. Some of this activity could conceivably be a seditious conspiracy, but we don't have enough context here to know.
Yes Impeachment proceedings (as are all activities of Congress) are legal proceedings in that they are enabled by the Constitution. While it is true that they are not judicial proceedings, the activities of the legislature as with the executive (like a police interview) and judiciary (like a trial) are legal processes and the Fifth Amendment rights apply. During the McCarthy “red scare” era, pleading the fifth was commonplace by witnesses to Congressional hearings. However, pleading the fifth does not mean you can avoid testifying. If subpoenaed you would need to turn up and answer the questions, pleading the fifth when the answer could incriminate you in a criminal matter.
In the US, there are no (and can be no) laws against hate speech. You also cannot sue a person for using an ethnic or similar epithet. A false accusation, however, might be grounds for a defamation lawsuit. Word connotations do not matter, what matters is the denotation, for example calling someone a "rapist" denotes a specific criminal act. Even calling someone a rapist isn't necessarily defamatory, since hyperbole abounds especially on the internet, so in order to actually be defamation, the statement would have to be understood as a particular accusation (a form of unlawful sexual assault). A defamatory statement has to be made with reckless disregard for the truth of a statement, which is not the case in the situation you describe (perhaps the person correctly said that so-and-so is a therapist, but was ineffective in their use of English).
Eugene Volokh categorizes this as "crime-facilitating speech" in his articles, "The Freedom of Speech and Bad Purposes", and "Crime-Facilitating Speech". He characterizes the situation like this: Some chemistry textbooks discuss how explosives are made, some posts to computer security discussion groups discuss security bugs in a leading operating system, and some works on criminology or forensics discuss how hard-to-solve murders are committed. May the explicitly politically connected speech be treated as more valuable than the scientific speech? The Supreme Court has never decided a case squarely involving the suppression of scientific speech, but it has repeatedly described scientific speech as constitutionally equal in value to political speech. He presents a split amongst the circuits and statutes regarding mens rea for crimes stemming from such speech. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue. In one example case, the 9th Circuit ruled that merely distributing computer code "with the knowledge that it would likely be used for bookmaking" could be punished. Other cases have held that speech must "purposely" rather than incidentally inform people how to commit a crime in order for that speech to be punished.
In most countries, there is a standard format for citations. The guiding principle behind these is to make it easy to verify the law says what you claim it says. So you only need to give information needed to find the law you are citing. Usually, citations go the opposite of your example -- they start with the most general reference, and get more specific. Also, most citations only give information for sections that are numbered or lettered. Unless sentences are numbered or lettered, I would not cite them. For example, to find something in the US code, we need to know the: Title/Chapter/Section/subsection...and so on. For example, the federal law prohibiting the ownership of machine guns is in US Code, Title 18: Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Ch 44 Firearms, § 922 Unlawful Acts subsection (o)(1). Since sections are numbered consecutively, we usually leave out the chapter: 18 USC § 922(o)(1). In Ukraine, it appears law is organized into Codes, Chapters, Articles and Sections. Since Articles are numbered consecutively, we can leave out the Chapters. Thus, the citation for the definition of murder would be Ukrainian Criminal Code, Art 115 § 1. Caveat: I am not an expert in Ukrainian law and may be wrong on some details, so you should look at some Ukrainian legal sources to double check.
united-states Is a personal text (like a diary), submitted without the consent of the author, admissible evidence? Usually, it is admissible evidence. There is no legal right to keep your diary private. Production of a diary may be compelled by subpoena and admitted into evidence subject only to general considerations regarding whether particular entries in the diary are inadmissible for some other reason (e.g. lack of relevance, they recite the contents of an otherwise privileged discussion, they contain hearsay, they recite the terms of a settlement offer, the recite inadmissible prior act evidence, etc.). If the diary revealed information that could place the diarist at risk of criminal prosecution, the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination could arguably be claimed even in a civil case, but at the risk of an adverse inference to be drawn from that decision in civil matters. I haven't ever seen how that issue is resolved legally.
The restrictions of the First Amendment have been made applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. For the right to assemble, this was recognized in De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937). But note that the right only protects peaceable assembly. When it is alleged that improper violence or other properly unlawful action has occurred, the state may make that criminal, and indeed laws against rioting have existed throughout the history of the US. Whether a law is criminalizing peaceful assembly or prohibiting unlawful violence is a question that depends on th wording of the law, and the way it is applied In the De Jonge opinion the Court wrote: The broad reach of the statute as thus applied is plain. While defendant was a member of the Communist Party, that membership was not necessary to conviction on such a charge. A like fate might have attended any speaker, although not a member, who &quot;assisted in the conduct&quot; of the meeting. However innocuous the object of the meeting, however lawful the subjects and tenor of the addresses, however reasonable and timely the discussion, all those assisting in the conduct of the meeting would be subject to imprisonment as felons if the meeting were held by the Communist Party. ... While the States are entitled to protect themselves from the abuse of the privileges of our institutions through an attempted substitution of force and violence in the place of peaceful political action in order to effect revolutionary changes in government, none of our decisions goes to the length of sustaining such a curtailment of the right of free speech and assembly as the Oregon statute demands in its present application. In Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652, under the New York statute defining criminal anarchy, the defendant was found to be responsible for a &quot;manifesto&quot; advocating the overthrow of the government by violence and unlawful means. Id. pp. 268 U. S. 656, 268 U. S. 662, 268 U. S. 663. In Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, under the California statute relating to criminal syndicalism, the defendant was found guilty of willfully and deliberately assisting in the forming of an organization for the purpose of carrying on a revolutionary class struggle by criminal methods ... Freedom of speech and of the press are fundamental rights which are safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. Gitlow v. New York, supra, p. 268 U. S. 666; Stromberg v. California, supra, p. 283 U. S. 368; Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697, 283 U. S. 707; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 297 U. S. 243, 297 U. S. 244. The right of peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press, and is equally fundamental. As this Court said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 92 U. S. 552: implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances. The First Amendment of the Federal Constitution expressly guarantees that right against abridgment by Congress. But explicit mention there does not argue exclusion elsewhere. For the right is one that cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions -- principles which the Fourteenth Amendment embodies in the general terms of its due process clause. Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U. S. 312, 272 U. S. 316; Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 287 U. S. 67; Grosjean v. American Press Co., supra.
In the United States at least, the answer is clearly "Yes". Absent some restrictive agreement to which the would-be blogger is explicitly a party, a person has a protected right to comment or report on events and publish opinions of them. The question does not mention a location or jurisdiction, and I am not suren what the law on this point might be in non-US jurisdictions.