Freedom of Speech is perhaps the most abused ammendment the United States has.

People, let's not forget that simply because an **** like Moore CAN abuse his forum and the intent of the Free Speech Amendment, doesn't mean he should.

Personal responsiblity has all but disappeared from the American Landscape. People hide behind words rather than the intent of written laws.

Bill Clinton's definition of "sexual relations" is but one example, and blowhards like Moore are another.
Perhaps you also support the right of a group like NAMBLA, who claim firt amendment rights when they write to each other about how to seduce young boys into bed.
Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech.

Take responsibility for your own actions and it's OK to expect others to do the same. It's called society, and the needs of the many far outway the needs of the few.

Moore need not be arrested, but he should be black-balled by the very organization that gave him his opportunity to show his true colors.
And they are not Red, White and Blue.

Wow Doe, that spells it out doesn't it.

Had not thought of Sedition in the case of Mikey Moore...but sure does seem to fit the incident.


Charlie

Tailgater - I agree just because he can, doesn't mean he should. All I was arguing about was the CAN part.

He is not a Government official or employee.

As cwilhelmi stated in another post, they are the only ones punishable by it, based on the Sedition Act of 1918. Therefore, Moore has no constraints on his freedom of speach based on the sedition act since he is neither an official nor an employee of the US.

" ... shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or the imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both: ***PROVIDED***, that any employee or official of the United States Government who commits any disloyal act or utters any unpatriotic or disloyal language, or who, in an abusive and violent manner criticizes the Army or Navy or the flag of the United States shall be at once dismissed from the service ..."

... 'provided', being the key word here!

Chris,
No arguement there. Yes, he Can do what he did.
But it begs the question: Should he?
And the answer is a resounding NO.
For the reasons I've stated above and elsewhere, and also for many other reasons.
I've yet to hear a reason why he "should" do what he did.

Having the ability and the legal right to do something doesn't imply that it should be done. And it doesn't make you exempt from the consequences.

tailgater --- over the years at these forums, I've been known to have those 'control' tendencies to tell people what they 'should' and 'shouldn't' do or say here ...

Many were legitimate statements and suggestions ... but in the long run, do you think it did any good?

There will aways be those that will still do and say what's on their minds ... right or wrong ... and I doubt that any one can or will change that.

http://ncnc.essortment.com/espionagehistor_rago.htm . Numerous non-government employees have been prosecuted.

tailgater - I agree it was in poor taste and he shouldn't have said it, I was glad his comments were responded to with resounding disdain from the crowd.

donutboy2000 --- I did my research, and checked out that link before I posted. Do you have anything more recent???

Seems to me ... all this happened back in the early 1900's.

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 

Sedition nothing!
We should instead give him the Sedation Act.
A permanent nap, so to speak...