sedition
American Heritage Dictionary:
Top
se·di·tion
(sĭ-dĭsh'ən) 
n.
n.
- Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.
- Insurrection; rebellion.
[Middle English sedicioun, violent party strife, from Old French sedition, from Latin sēditiō, sēditiōn- : sēd-, sē-, apart + itiō, act of going (from itus, past participle of īre, to go).]
seditionist se·di'tion·ist n.Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
Top
sedition
Crime of creating a revolt, disturbance, or violence against lawful civil authority with the intent to cause its overthrow or destruction. Because it is limited to organizing and encouraging opposition to government rather than directly participating in its overthrow, sedition is regarded as falling one step short of the more serious crime of treason. In the U.S. the display of a certain flag or the advocacy of a particular movement, such as syndicalism, anarchism, or communism, has periodically been declared seditious. More recently, the courts have applied a more stringent test of sedition to ensure that constitutional guarantees regarding freedom of speech are not abridged. Alien and Sedition Acts.
For more information on sedition, visit Britannica.com.
Roget's Thesaurus:
Top
sedition
noun
- Organized opposition intended to change or overthrow existing authority: insurgence, insurgency, insurrection, mutiny, rebellion, revolt, revolution, uprising. See resist/yield.
- Willful violation of allegiance to one's country: seditiousness, traitorousness, treason. See trust/distrust.
Top
n.conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
See the Introduction, Abbreviations and Pronunciation for further details.
Columbia Encyclopedia:
Top
sedition
sedition (sĭdĭ'shən), in law, acts or words tending to upset the authority of a government. The scope of the offense was broad in early common law, which even permitted prosecution for a remark insulting to the king. Although there have been several statutes in the United States forbidding seditious utterances and writings, the protection guaranteed to speech and press by the First Amendment to the Constitution has made them difficult to enforce except during periods of great national stress. The Sedition Act of 1798 generated so much opposition (see Alien and Sedition Acts) that similar statutes were not enacted until the 20th cent. During World War I the Espionage Act (1917) and the Sedition Act (1918) punished speeches and writings that interfered with the war effort or caused contempt for the government. Vaguely worded and broadly interpreted, they resulted in over 2,000 prosecutions, mostly against radicals and the radical press. The Smith Act of 1940, restricted in scope to the advocacy of violence against the government, was invoked only infrequently during World War II, though it was later used successfully to prosecute Communist party leaders, as in Dennis v. United States (1951). The libel decision of Sullivan v. New York Times (1964), by granting special protection to criticism of public officials, largely eliminated what remained of the crime of sedition in the United States.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law:
Top
Sedition
This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.
A revolt or an incitement to revolt against established authority, usually in the form of treason or defamation against government.
Sedition is the crime of revolting or inciting revolt against government. However, because of the broad protection of free speech under the First Amendment, prosecutions for sedition are rare. Nevertheless, sedition remains a crime in the United States under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (1948), a federal statute that punishes seditious conspiracy, and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2385 (1948), which outlaws advocating the overthrow of the federal government by force. Generally, a person may be punished for sedition only when he or she makes statements that create a clear and present danger to rights that the government may lawfully protect (Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).
The crime of seditious conspiracy is committed when two or more persons in any state or U.S. territory conspire to levy war against the U.S. government. A person commits the crime of advocating the violent overthrow of the federal government when she willfully advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government by force, publishes material that advocates the overthrow of the government by force, or organizes persons to overthrow the government by force. A person found guilty of seditious conspiracy or advocating the overthrow of the government may be fined and sentenced to up to twenty years in prison. States also maintain laws that punish similar advocacy and conspiracy against the state government.
Governments have made sedition illegal since time immemorial. The precise acts that constitute sedition have varied. In the United States, Congress in the late eighteenth century believed that government should be protected from "false, scandalous and malicious" criticisms. Toward this end, Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1798, which authorized the criminal prosecution of persons who wrote or spoke falsehoods about the government, Congress, the president, or the vice president. The act was to expire with the term of President John Adams.
The Sedition Act failed miserably. Thomas Jefferson opposed the act, and after he was narrowly elected president in 1800, public opposition to the act grew. The act expired in 1801, but not before it was used by President Adams to prosecute numerous public supporters of Jefferson, his challenger in the presidential election of 1800. One writer, Matthew Lyon, a congressman from Vermont, was found guilty of seditious libel for stating, in part, that he would not be the "humble advocate" of the Adams administration when he saw "every consideration of the public welfare swallowed up in a continual grasp for power, in an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice" (Lyon's Case, 15 F. Cas. 1183 [D. Vermont 1798] [No. 8646]). Vermont voters reelected Lyon while he was in jail. Jefferson, after winning the election and assuming office, pardoned all persons convicted under the act.
In the 1820s and 1830s, as the movement to abolish slavery grew in size and force in the South, Southern states began to enact seditious libel laws. Most of these laws were used to prosecute persons critical of slavery, and they were abolished after the Civil War. The federal government was no less defensive; Congress enacted seditious conspiracy laws before the Civil War aimed at persons advocating secession from the United States. These laws were the precursors to the present-day federal seditious conspiracy statute.
In the late nineteenth century, Congress and states began to enact new limits on speech, most notably statutes prohibiting obscenity. At the outset of World War I, Congress passed legislation designed to suppress antiwar speech. The Espionage Act of 1917 (ch. 30, tit. 1, § 3, 40 Stat. 219), as amended by ch. 75, § 1, 40 Stat 553, put a number of pacificists into prison. Socialist leader Eugene V. Debs was convicted for making an antiwar speech in Canton, Ohio (Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211, 39 S. Ct. 252, 63 L. Ed. 566 [1919]). Charles T. Schenck and Elizabeth Baer were convicted for circulating to military recruits a leaflet that advocated opposition to the draft and suggested that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment's ban on involuntary servitude (Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).
The U.S. Supreme Court did little to protect the right to criticize the government until after 1927. That year, Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote an influential concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 47 S. Ct. 641, 71 L. Ed. 1095 (1927), that was to guide First Amendment jurisprudence for years to come. In Whitney the High Court upheld the convictions of political activists for violation of federal anti-syndicalism laws, or laws that prohibit the teaching of crime. In his concurring opinion, Brandeis maintained that even if a person advocates violation of the law, "it is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on." Beginning in the 1930s, the Court became more protective of political free speech rights.
Through the 1970s the High Court became more rigorous in its examination of statutes and prosecutions targeting sedition. The High Court has protected the speech of racial supremacists and separatists, labor organizers, advocates of racial integration, and opponents of the draft for the war in Vietnam. However, it has refused to declare unconstitutional all sedition statutes and prosecutions. In 1940, to silence radicals and quell Nazi or communist subversion during the burgeoning Second World War, Congress enacted the Smith Act (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2385, 2387), which outlawed sedition and seditious conspiracy. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the act in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951).
Sedition prosecutions are extremely rare, but they do occur. Shortly after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City, the federal government prosecuted Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, a blind Egyptian cleric living in New Jersey, and nine codefendants on charges of seditious conspiracy. Rahman and the other defendants were convicted of violating the seditious conspiracy statute by engaging in an extensive plot to wage a war of terrorism against the United States. With the exception of Rahman, they all were arrested while mixing explosives in a garage in Queens, New York, on June 24, 1993.
The defendants committed no overt acts of war, but all were found to have taken substantial steps toward carrying out a plot to levy war against the United States. The government did not have sufficient evidence that Rahman participated in the actual plotting against the government or any other activities to prepare for terrorism. He was instead prosecuted for providing religious encouragement to his coconspirators. Rahman argued that he only performed the function of a cleric and advised followers about the rules of Islam. He and the others were convicted, and on January 17, 1996, Rahman was sentenced to life imprisonment by Judge Michael Mukasey.
See: Cold War; Communism; Dennis v. United States; Freedom of Speech; Schenck v. United States; Socialism.
Top
(DOD) Willfully advocating or teaching the duty or necessity of overthrowing the US government or any political subdivision by force or violence. See also counterintelligence.
Top
Acts that incite rebellion or civil disorder against an established government.
Word Tutor:
Top
sedition
IN BRIEF: To take action against the government or state.
Acting violently against the government risks charge of sedition.
LearnThatWord.com is a free vocabulary and spelling program where you only pay for results!
Politics Q&A:
Top
What is sedition?
Sedition is defined as laws, deeds, or words that disrupt the authority of a government. In early common law, the scope of the offense was broad enough that it included prosecution for uttering a derogatory remark against the king. The Sedition Act of 1798—which stated that any treasonable activity, including the publication of “any false, scandalous and malicious writing,” was punishable by fine and imprisonment—generated so much controversy that no similar laws were enacted in the United States until the twentieth century. Although there have been several statutes since the 1700s that forbid seditious statements and writing, the protection of speech and press that the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees all individuals has made them difficult to enforce except during times of national strife.
| What is reverse lobbying? | |
| What is sequestration? |
Random House Word Menu:
Top
categories related to 'sedition'
- Acts, Powers, Conditions, and Procedures - sedition: verbal incitement of resistance to lawful authority
- Intrigues, Plots, and Corruption - sedition: incitement of public disorder or insurrection against legal authority
- Crimes - sedition: incitement to rebellion against government
See crossword solutions for the clue Wikipedia on Answers.com:
Top
Sedition
This article is about the legal term. For other uses, see Sedition (disambiguation).
In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.
Typically, sedition is considered a subversive act, and the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where the history of these legal codes has been traced, there is also a record of the change in the definition of the elements constituting sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological definition of sedition as well, within the study of state persecution.
The difference between sedition and treason consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object of the violation to the public peace. Sedition does not consist of levying war against a government nor of adhering to its enemies, giving enemies aid, and giving enemies comfort. Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).
Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state, giving aid to enemies, or levying war against one's state. Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one's country by aiding and abetting another state. Sedition laws somewhat equate to terrorism and public order laws.
|
Contents
|
History in common law jurisdictions
The term sedition in its modern meaning first appeared in the Elizabethan Era (c. 1590) as the "notion of inciting by words or writings disaffection towards the state or constituted authority"[citation needed]. "Sedition complements treason and martial law: while treason controls primarily the privileged, ecclesiastical opponents, priests, and Jesuits, as well as certain commoners; and martial law frightens commoners, sedition frightens intellectuals."[citation needed] sedition history in Pakistan
Australia
Main article: Australian sedition law
Australia's sedition laws were amended in anti-terrorism legislation passed on 6 December 2005, updating definitions and increasing penalties.
In late 2006, the Commonwealth Government, under the Prime-Ministership of John Howard proposed plans to amend Australia's Crimes Act 1914, introducing laws that mean artists and writers may be jailed for up to seven years if their work was considered seditious or inspired sedition either deliberately or accidentally.[1] Opponents of these laws have suggested that they could be used against legitimate dissent.
In 2006, the then Australian attorney-general Philip Ruddock had rejected calls by two reports — from a Senate committee and the Australian Law Reform Commission — to limit the sedition provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 by requiring proof of intention to cause disaffection or violence. He had also brushed aside recommendations to curtail new clauses outlawing “urging conduct” that “assists” an “organisation or country engaged in armed hostilities” against the Australian military. The new laws, inserted into the legislation December 2005, allow for the criminalization of basic expressions of political opposition, including supporting resistance to Australian military interventions, such as those in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Asia-Pacific region.[2]
These laws were amended in Australia on the 19-09-2011. The ‘sedition’ clauses was repealed and replaced with ‘urging violence’. [1]
Canada
During World War II former Mayor of Montreal Camillien Houde campaigned against conscription in Canada. On August 2, 1940, Houde publicly urged the men of Quebec to ignore the National Registration Act. Three days later, he was placed under arrest by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on charges of sedition. After being found guilty, he was confined in internment camps in Petawawa, Ontario, and Gagetown, New Brunswick, until 1944. Upon his release on August 18, 1944, he was greeted by a cheering crowd of 50,000 Montrealers and won back his position as the Mayor of Montreal in the election in 1944.[citation needed]
Hong Kong
A Sedition Ordinance had existed in the territory since 1970, which was subsequently consolidated into the Crime Ordinance in 1972.[3] According to the Crime Ordinance, a seditious intention is an intention to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the person of government, to excite inhabitants of Hong Kong to attempt to procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any other matter in Hong Kong as by law established, to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Hong Kong, to raise discontent or disaffection amongst inhabitants of Hong Kong, to promote feelings of ill-will and enmity between different classes of the population of Hong Kong, to incite persons to violence, or to counsel disobedience to law or to any lawful order.[4][5]
Article 23 of the Basic Law requires the special administrative region to enact laws prohibiting any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China.[6] The National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill was tabled in early 2003 to replace the existing laws regarding treason and sedition, and to introduce new laws to prohibit secessionist and subversive acts and theft of state secrets, and to prohibit political organisations from establishing overseas ties. The bill was shelved following massive opposition from the public.
India
Sedition law in India is a legacy of the colonial era.[7][8] While the United Kingdom abolished sedition laws in 2010, sedition became a big issue in India the same year as noted writer Arundhati Roy, amongst others, were sought to be charged with sedition[9] for advocating independence for the disputed Kashmir region. This is by no means the only instance of sedition laws being used in contemporary India. Many human rights activists have found themselves charged with sedition.[10]
Binayak Sen MBBS, MD; is an Indian pediatrician, public health specialist and activist was found guilty of sedition.[11] He is the national Vice-President of the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL).On 24 December 2010, the Additional Sessions and District Court Judge B.P Varma Raipur found Binayak Sen, Naxal ideologue Narayan Sanyal and Kolkata businessman Piyush Guha, guilty of sedition for helping the Maoists in their fight against the state.They were sentenced to life imprisonment.However he got bail in Supreme court on 16 April 2011.[12]
New Zealand
Sedition charges were not uncommon in New Zealand early in the 20th Century. For instance, the future Prime Minister Peter Fraser had been convicted of sedition in his youth for arguing against conscription during World War I, and was imprisoned for a year. Perhaps ironically, Fraser re-introduced the conscription of troops as the Prime Minister during World War II.[13]
In New Zealand's first sedition trial in decades, Tim Selwyn was convicted of sedition (section 83 of the Crimes Act 1961) on 8 June 2006. Shortly after, in September 2006, the New Zealand Police laid a sedition charge against a Rotorua youth, Christopher Russell, 17, who was also charged with threatening to kill.[14] The Police withdrew the sedition charge when Russell agreed to plead guilty on the other charge.[15]
In March 2007, Mark Paul Deason, the manager of a tavern near the University of Otago, was charged with seditious intent[16] although he was later granted diversion when he pleaded guilty to publishing a document which encourages public disorder[17] Deason ran a promotion for his tavern that offered one litre of beer for one litre of petrol. At the end of the promotion, the prize would have been a couch soaked in the petrol. It is presumed the intent was for the couch to be burned — a popular university student prank. Police also applied for Deason's liquor license to be revoked.
Following a recommendation from the New Zealand Law Commission,[18] the New Zealand government announced on 7 May 2007 that the sedition law would be repealed.[19] The Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Act 2007 was passed on 24 October 2007, and entered into force on 1 January 2008.[20]
United Kingdom
Sedition was a common law offence in the UK. James Fitzjames Stephen's "Digest of the Criminal Law" stated that "a seditious intention is an intention to bring into hatred or contempt, or to exite disaffection against the person of His Majesty, his heirs or successors, or the government and constitution of the United Kingdom, as by law established, or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice, or to excite His Majesty's subjects to attempt otherwise than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in Church or State by law established, or to incite any person to commit any crime in disturbance of the peace, or to raise discontent or disaffection amongst His Majesty's subjects, or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of such subjects.
An intention to show that His Majesty has been misled or mistaken in his measures, or to point out errors or defects in the government or constitution as by law established , with a view to their reformation, or to excite His Majesty's subjects to attempt by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Church or State by law established , or to point out, in order to secure their removal, matters which are producing, or have a tendency to produce, feelings of hatred and ill-will between classes of His Majesty's subjects, is not a seditious intention."
Stephen in his "History of the Criminal Law of England" accepted the view that a seditious libel was nothing short of a direct incitement to disorder and violence. He stated that the modern view of the law was plainly and fully set out by Littledale J. in Collins. In that case the jury were instructed that they could convict of seditious libel only if they were satisfied that the defendant "meant that the people should make use of physical force as their own resource to obtain justice, and meant to excite the people to take the power in to their own hands, and meant to excite them to tumult and disorder."
The last prosecution for sedition in the United Kingdom was in 1972, when three people were charged with seditious conspiracy and uttering seditious words for attempting to recruit people to travel to Northern Ireland to fight in support of Republicans. The seditious conspiracy charge was dropped, but the men received suspended sentences for uttering seditious words and for offences against the Public Order Act.[21]
In 1977, a Law Commission working paper recommended that the common law offence of sedition in England and Wales be abolished. They said that they thought that this offence was redundant and that it was not necessary to have any offence of sedition.[21] However this proposal was not implemented until 2009, when sedition and seditious libel (as common law offences) were abolished by section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (with effect on 12 January 2010).[22] Sedition by an alien is still an offence under section 3 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919.[23]
In Scotland, section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 abolished the common law offences of sedition and leasing-making[24] with effect from 28 March 2011.[25]
United States
Civilian
In 1798, President John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, the fourth of which, the Sedition Act or "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States" set out punishments of up to two years of imprisonment for "opposing or resisting any law of the United States" or writing or publishing "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the President or the U.S. Congress, but specifically not the Vice-President[clarification needed][citation needed]. This Act of Congress was allowed to expire in 1801 after the election of Thomas Jefferson to the Presidency. He had been the Vice-President at the time of the Act's passage.
In the Espionage Act of 1917, Section 3 made it a federal crime, punishable by up to 20 years of imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000, to willfully spread false news of the American army and navy with an intent to disrupt their operations, to foment mutiny in their ranks, or to obstruct recruiting. This Act of Congress was amended Sedition Act of 1918, which expanded the scope of the Espionage Act to any statement criticizing the Government of the United States. These Acts were upheld in 1919 in the case of Schenck v. United States, but they were largely repealed in 1921, leaving laws forbidding foreign espionage in the United States and allowing military censorship of sensitive material.
In 1940, the Alien Registration Act, or "Smith Act", was passed, which made it a federal crime to advocate or to teach the desirability of overthrowing the United States Government, or to be a member of any organization which does the same. It was often used against Communist Party organizations. This Act was invoked in three major cases, one of which against the Socialist Worker's Party in Minneapolis in 1941, resulting in 23 convictions, and again in what became known as the Great Sedition Trial of 1944 in which a number of pro-Nazi figures were indicted but released when the prosecution ended in a mistrial. Also, a series of trials of 140 leaders of the Communist Party USA also relied upon the terms of the "Smith Act" -- beginning in 1949—and lasting until 1957. Although the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the convictions of 11 CPUSA leaders in 1951 in Dennis v. United States, that same Court reversed itself in 1957 in the case of Yates v. United States, by ruling that teaching an ideal, no matter how harmful it may seem, does not equal advocating or planning its implementation. Although unused since at least 1961, the "Smith Act" remains a Federal law.
There was, however, a brief attempt to use the sedition laws against protesters of the Vietnam War. On October 17, 1967, two demonstrators, including then Marin County resident Al Wasserman, while engaged in a 'sit in' at the Army Induction Center in Oakland, Ca., were arrested and charged with sedition by deputy US. Marshall Richard St. Germain. U.S. Attorney Cecil Poole changed the charge to trespassing.
Poole said, "three guys (according to Mr. Wasserman there were only 2) reaching up and touching the leg of an inductee, and that's conspiracy to commit sedition? That's ridiculous!"
The inductees were in the process of physically stepping on the demonstrators as they attempted to enter the building, and the demonstrators were trying to protect themselves from the inductees' feet.
Attorney Poole later added, "We'll decide what to prosecute, not marshals."[26]
On October 1, 1995, Omar Abdel-Rahman and nine others were convicted of seditious conspiracy.[27]
Laura Berg, a nurse at a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in New Mexico was investigated for sedition in September 2005[28] after writing a letter[29][30] to the editor of a local newspaper, accusing several national leaders of criminal negligence. Though their action was later deemed unwarranted by the director of Veteran Affairs, local human resources personnel took it upon themselves to request an FBI investigation. Ms. Berg was represented by the ACLU.[31] Charges were dropped in 2006.[32]
On March 28, 2010, nine members of the militia Hutaree were arrested and charged with crimes including seditious conspiracy.[33]
Military
Sedition is a punishable offense under Article 94 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.[34]
Civil law jurisdictions
Germany
Volksverhetzung ("incitement of the people") is a legal concept unique to Germany. It is sometimes loosely translated as sedition.[35]
See also
References
- ^ Satire used to counter new sedition laws, ABC's Lateline transcript, 24 October 2006
- ^ Australia’s new Sedition Laws, Mike Head, World Socialist Web Site, 27 October 2006
- ^ http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_ind.nsf/d2769881999f47b3482564840019d2f9/b7ecf42121923dc3c8256483003220de?OpenDocument
- ^ Cap 200 s 9
- ^ Cap 2601 s 6
- ^ Chapter 2, Basic Law
- ^ "We are all seditious now but when did this start?" Kafila.org, 6 December 2010 http://kafila.org/2010/12/06/we-are-all-seditious-now-but-when-did-this-start/
- ^ "On Sedition: Sarim Naved," Kafila.org, 7 December 2010 http://kafila.org/2010/12/07/sedition-law-india-dissent-history-courts/
- ^ Geelani, Arundhati to be booked under sedition charge- The Times of India, 25 October 2010 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Geelani-Arundhati-to-be-booked-under-sedition-charge/articleshow/6810983.cms#ixzz1Awt7adshttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Geelani-Arundhati-to-be-booked-under-sedition-charge/articleshow/6810983.cms
- ^ "The Logical Urges of Sedition," Vij, Shivam, Kafila.org, 31 December 2010 http://kafila.org/2010/12/31/the-logical-urges-of-sedition/
- ^ http://news.oneindia.in/2011/02/10/binayaksens-mother-breaks-down-on-hearing-hcverdict-aid0126.html
- ^ http://www.indianexpress.com/news/It-s-the-first-step-towards-justice--says-Sen-Release-Committee/776831/
- ^ Today in History: 22 December 1916 - Future PM Fraser charged with sedition, nzhistory.net.nz, History Group of the New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage.
- ^ Collins, Simon (17 October 2006). "Law advice body wants to scrap crime of sedition". The New Zealand Herald. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10406234. Retrieved 8 November 2011.
- ^ Sedition by Example XXII: Christopher Russell, No Right Turn weblog, 28 February 2007
- ^ Police move to cancel 'beer-for-petrol' publican's licence, Infonews.co.nz, 11 April 2007
- ^ Diversion over petrol-soaked couch promo, Crime.co.nz, 29 March 2007
- ^ Law Commission recommends abolition of seditious offencesPDF (68.8 KiB), New Zealand Law Commission, 5 April 2007
- ^ "Sedition law to be repealed". Radio New Zealand. 2007-05-07. http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200705071751/sedition_law_to_be_repealed. Retrieved 2007-05-05.[dead link]
- ^ "New Zealand repeals sedition law". Wikinews. 2007-10-24. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/New_Zealand_repeals_sedition_law. Retrieved 2007-10-24.
- ^ a b The Law Commission, Treason, Sedition and Allied Offences (Working Paper No.72), paragraph 47 [1977] EWLC C72, BAILII
- ^ Coroners and Justice Act 2009
- ^ section 3, Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919
- ^ Criminal Justice & Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, section 51.
- ^ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2011/178/schedule/made The Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (Commencement No. 8, Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2011.
- ^ San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 21, 1967, pg 7, UPI - Independent Journal of Marin, Oct 21, 1967, pg 4
- ^ Richard Perez, "The Terror Conspiracy—The Charges—A Gamble Pays Off as the Prosecution Uses an Obscure 19th-Century Law", The New York Times, October 2, 1995.
- ^ VA nurse's letter to newspaper prompts sedition probe, Associated Press, published on First Amendment Center, February 8, 2006
- ^ Big Brother is Watching: A letter printed in the Alibi leads to the investigation of a local VA nurse for "sedition", Alibi.com, February 9–15, 2006
- ^ Speaking Truth to Power: An interview with Laura Berg, Alibi.com, March 9–15, 2006
- ^ ACLU of New Mexico defends VA employee accused of ‘Sedition’ over criticism of Bush Administration, ACLU, January 31, 2006
- ^ http://www.reason.com/news/show/117345.html
- ^ http://www.adl.org/NR/exeres/6636B995-3355-4D28-9FD0-07B7FA2FE153,DB7611A2-02CD-43AF-8147-649E26813571,frameless.htm
- ^ Uniform Code of Military Justice
- ^ http://www.linguee.de/uebersetzung/deutsch/sedition.html
Further reading
- Breight, Curtis, C. Surveillance, militarism and drama in the Elizabethan Era, Macmillian 1996: London.
- A synopsis of the Australian sedition lawsPDF
 |
Wikinews has related news: Auckland man convicted of sedition |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
Translations:
Top
Sedition
Dansk (Danish)
n. - tilskyndelse til oprør
Français (French)
n. - sédition
Ελληνική (Greek)
n. - εξέγερση, στάση, προτροπή σε εξέγερση
Português (Portuguese)
n. - sedição (f), rebelião (f)
Русский (Russian)
подстрекательство к бунту, восстание
Español (Spanish)
n. - sedición
Svenska (Swedish)
n. - upproriskhet, uppvigling, upprorsanda
中文（简体）(Chinese (Simplified))
煽动骚乱, 骚动, 妨害治安
中文（繁體）(Chinese (Traditional))
n. - 煽動騷亂, 騷動, 妨害治安
한국어 (Korean)
n. - 선동, 치안방해, 폭동 교사 행위
العربيه (Arabic)
(الاسم) تحريض على ألفتنه
עברית (Hebrew)
n. - המרדה, הסתה, חרחור ריב, תסיסה נגד סמכות המדינה, שיסוי
If you are unable to view some languages clearly, click here.
Post a question - any question - to the WikiAnswers community:
Copyrights:
American Heritage Dictionary
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2007, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Read more
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. © 1994-2012 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more
Roget's Thesaurus
Roget's II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition by the Editors of the American Heritage® Dictionary Copyright © 1995 byHoughton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Read more
Oxford Dictionary of the US Military
The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military. Copyright © 2001, 2002 by Oxford University Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
Read more
Columbia Encyclopedia
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2012, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/.
Read more
West's Encyclopedia of American Law
West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Copyright © 1998 by The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Read more
US Defense Department Military Dictionary
US Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Words, 2003.
Read more
Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: Politics
The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Edited by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved. Read more
Word Tutor
Copyright © 2004-present by eSpindle Learning, a 501(c) nonprofit organization. All rights reserved.
eSpindle provides personalized spelling and vocabulary tutoring online; sign up free. Read more
eSpindle provides personalized spelling and vocabulary tutoring online; sign up free. Read more
Politics Q&A
The Handy Politics Answer Book. © 2003 Visible Ink Press (handyanswers.com). All rights reserved. Read more
Random House Word Menu
© 2010 Write Brothers Inc. Word Menu is a registered trademark of the Estate of Stephen Glazier.
Write Brothers Inc.
All rights reserved.
Read more
Bradford's Crossword Solver's Dictionary
Collins Bradford's Crossword Solver's Dictionary © Anne Bradford, 1986, 1993, 1997, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008
HarperCollins Publishers
All rights reserved.
Read more
Wikipedia on Answers.com
This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article Sedition.
Read more
