Donutboy2000 – I think The Sedition Act doesn’t apply given the security risk involved with Moore’s statements, coupled with the most recent failed applications of the Act.
(excerpt (link below))
…But the Court's willingness to indulge limits on the First Amendment during wartime has tended to vary considerably depending upon the apparent nature of the conflict. For example, in response to the perceived threat of "anarchists" and "communists" within the U.S., the Court continued to adopt a wartime view of the First Amendment even after World War I ended. The Court upheld a state sedition law in Gilbert v. Minnesota (1920), and later upheld a state criminal syndicalism law in Whitney v. California (1927).
By contrast, when the security threat has been remote and does not threaten U.S. shores, the Court has been far more vigorous in protecting First Amendment boundaries. During the Vietnam War, for example, the Court rejected claims of "national security" to justify prior restraint of the publication of the Pentagon Papers. New York Times v. United States (1971). Likewise, the Vietnam era Court refused to enforce laws that prohibited speech condemning the draft and the rights of religious objectors. Cohen v. California (1971); Gillette v. United States (1971). Indeed, it was at the height of Vietnam and of the Cold War when the Court finally overruled Whitney, rejecting the old criminal syndicalism laws and permitting government to punish those who advocate illegal action only if their speech is intended to and is likely to produce "imminent lawless action." Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
http://www.osbar.org/2practice/bulletin/01nov/war.htm
