Treason.

[Adios]

Damn. I just ass/u/med

[LMNO]

So, you're saying I live in a Junta?


¡VIVA LA RAZA!

[the last yatto]

I was into treason before it became big and popular.

http://revcom.us/socialistconstitution/index.html

[the last yatto]

Could someone please explain the following quote from the code? (the part I bold-ed, specifically)

"-CITE-
    18 USC Sec. 2383                                            02/01/2010

-EXPCITE-
    TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    PART I - CRIMES
    CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

-HEAD-
    Sec. 2383. Rebellion or insurrection

-STATUTE-
      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."


Because I think I am understanding it in a (hopefully) wrong way.

If you aid in anyway an armed rebellion against federal authority and representatives thereof you're barred from running for office and go to jail for ten years?

I'm not sure it even has to be armed rebellion to qualify with that wording.

Like acts of mass disobedience...
My guess is they would want to use on people fighting for illegals rights
Heck maybe even wikileaks, that will teach those bastards at the aclu

maybe target hippies if they keep up their anti war rhetoric ?

[BadBeast]

There's no sport, or kudos in beating on Hippys. Also they wouldn't get antsy enough to justify getting the super-frozen brine cannons out.

[the last yatto]

Depends if they keep voting out pro war dems out of the primaries

[Disco Pickle]

I mean that operating behind the scenes as a financier or organizer of any group large enough to challenge "dur lawr" could be charged under this as broad as it's written.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I mean that operating behind the scenes as a financier or organizer of any group large enough to challenge "dur lawr" could be charged under this as broad as it's written.

Shocking, isn't it?   

[Disco Pickle]

I mean that operating behind the scenes as a financier or organizer of any group large enough to challenge "dur lawr" could be charged under this as broad as it's written.

Shocking, isn't it?   

only that it hasn't been used more often.    not that is necessarily a good thing.  just surprising.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I mean that operating behind the scenes as a financier or organizer of any group large enough to challenge "dur lawr" could be charged under this as broad as it's written.

Shocking, isn't it?   

only that it hasn't been used more often.    not that is necessarily a good thing.  just surprising.

Expect that to change.  Brinksmanship:  It's your pal!

[Triple Zero]

The thing is, why they may have the legal right to use such laws, it pays not to use the worst ones until it's absolutely necessary. Otherwise people will be like "Hey wait a minute, that's not right!", instead you need to turn up the ridiculousness of the enforced laws very slowly, even if they're already written and you'd have the right, turn up the heat very slowly, like that story about cooking a frog or a lobster.

[Adios]

The thing is, why they may have the legal right to use such laws, it pays not to use the worst ones until it's absolutely necessary. Otherwise people will be like "Hey wait a minute, that's not right!", instead you need to turn up the ridiculousness of the enforced laws very slowly, even if they're already written and you'd have the right, turn up the heat very slowly, like that story about cooking a frog or a lobster.

Just like the Patriot Act. Right? oops, no rights.

[Triple Zero]

The Patriot Act was named that way because, in order to get away with it, they had to put up a huge patriot act, right?

[Adios]

The Patriot Act was named that way because, in order to get away with it, they had to put up a huge patriot act, right?

NEWSFEED

[E.O.T.]

Annnnd http://www.theskanner.com/article/2011/01/11/Legal-Precedents-for-Political-Incitement-Set-in-Portland

Gabrielle Giffords, Sarah Palin, Mulugeta Seraw, Tom Metzger, Dr. George Tiller, "The Nuremberg Files" -- it is a strange coincidence that two of the biggest civil cases in America against virulent conservative rhetoric – incidents that involved politically-motivated murders – were tried in Portland courtrooms.

In 2002, anti-choice activists who had created a "wanted" poster-style website listing abortion providers with gun sights over their faces were found liable for damages because the site constituted "a true threat," and not protected First Amendment speech.

And in 1988, White supremacist leader Tom Metzger and his son, John, were found guilty of "organizing" and inciting the fatal skinhead beating of Portland resident Mulugeta Seraw.

Gee, looks like legal precedent has been set.

That Metzger case is a sham