Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorOhh
I think almost 60 million folks recently voted to destroy the current government and replace it with a new government. That's a lot of treasonous folks.
|
Or not.
In the US, Treason is a *very* specific crime of very limited scope:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...ion_3:_Treason
Quote:
|
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
|
Overt act.
Not speech.
Speech against the government would tend to fall under the definition of sedition:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sedition
Quote:
|
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 (2000), a federal statute that punishes seditious conspiracy, and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2385 (2000), 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]).
|
And therein lies the rub: sedition remains in the books but is rarely invoked because of the extensive body of law protecting free speech and because it can only be invoked when the speech creates a clear and present danger. (Say, inciting a riot that goes on to attack government facilities.)
In Mister Card's case, every precedent for over a century now makes it clear he has every right to state his desire for an overthrow of the government, even by force, as long as he doesn't actually carry out any overt act in that direction or suggests specific harm to the occupant of the White House.
Considering how touchy folks 'round here are about anything that even remotely resembles censorship, it is somewhat ironic that a relatively mild expression like that could cause such an emotional reaction.
You don't have to go particularly far back in time to encounter far more threatening comments in the public discourse coming from elected officials, no less.
If a writer's expressed ideas--whether personal or in a narrative--offend you, the only reasonable action for opponents of censorship is to ignore it or to counter it with an opposing viewpoint.
If censorship is acceptable, advocating a boycott is also more or less reasonable.
Expecting government action against such speech, however, is something more likely to be found in Card's own fiction (specifically, EMPIRE) rather than the real world we still live in. Not. Going. To. Happen.
EMPIRE might yet come to pass but for now it is still a controversial novel (and a pretty darn good XBOX video game).
BTW, in recent times I've noticed a certain tendency to demonize a lot of stories that present distateful scenarios/characters *solely* because those characters or scenarios are distasteful. That prevalence, I find a lot more worrisome than some author shooting his mouth off in a public forum. But then, I like cautionary tales and stories of anti-heroes.