Is it okay to advocate revolution is it legal, and should it be?

Sep 2018
6,740
1,150
cleveland ohio
847007e29580843718edfca1643423f7.jpg
Brandenburg v. Ohio established the Imminent Lawless Action test used to determine when speech protected under the First Amendment can be lawfully restricted. In Brandenburg, the Court held that hate speech is protected under the First Amendment as long as it does not provoke violence.

C-SPAN Landmark Cases | Brandenburg v Ohio
 
May 2018
4,992
4,150
USA
Illegal. US Code 2384 - seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
 
Sep 2018
6,740
1,150
cleveland ohio
Illegal. US Code 2384 - seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
yeah so you talk shit, but the moment you actually do anything you b in truble
 
  • Like
Reactions: right to left

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
70,592
30,780
Colorado
The Founders, criminals then and now.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
 
Dec 2016
5,963
3,039
Canada
The Founders, criminals then and now.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Okay, that's what the FF's said, but what's more important is what did they do when challenged for violating some of their pledges on taxation and local governance to their supporters? I'm thinking 'Whiskey Rebellion" here, and how George Washington called up a large militia to put down that insurrection in Western Pennsylvania. Pretty obvious that they weren't going to let anyone "alter or abolish" the government they created, and intended to enforce....whether or not they were following constitutional rights and privileges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sabcat

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
70,592
30,780
Colorado
Okay, that's what the FF's said, but what's more important is what did they do when challenged for violating some of their pledges on taxation and local governance to their supporters? I'm thinking 'Whiskey Rebellion" here, and how George Washington called up a large militia to put down that insurrection in Western Pennsylvania. Pretty obvious that they weren't going to let anyone "alter or abolish" the government they created, and intended to enforce....whether or not they were following constitutional rights and privileges.
Like I said..... :)
 
Sep 2018
6,740
1,150
cleveland ohio
Okay, that's what the FF's said, but what's more important is what did they do when challenged for violating some of their pledges on taxation and local governance to their supporters? I'm thinking 'Whiskey Rebellion" here, and how George Washington called up a large militia to put down that insurrection in Western Pennsylvania. Pretty obvious that they weren't going to let anyone "alter or abolish" the government they created, and intended to enforce....whether or not they were following constitutional rights and privileges.
Shays' Rebellion was an armed uprising in Massachusetts, mostly in and around Springfield during 1786 and 1787. American Revolutionary War veteran Daniel Shays led four thousand rebels (called Shaysites) in a protest against perceived economic and civil rights injustices. Shays was a farmhand from Massachusetts at the beginning of the Revolutionary War; he joined the Continental Army, saw action at the Battles of Lexington and Concord, Battle of Bunker Hill, and Battles of Saratoga, and was eventually wounded in action.
In 1787, Shays' rebels marched on the United States' Armory at Springfield in an unsuccessful attempt to seize its weaponry and overthrow the government. The federal government found itself unable to finance troops to put down the rebellion, and it was consequently put down by the Massachusetts State militia and a privately funded local militia. The widely held view was that the Articles of Confederation needed to be reformed as the country's governing document, and the events of the rebellion served as a catalyst for the Constitutional Convention and the creation of the new government.[2]
The shock of Shays' Rebellion drew retired General George Washington back into public life, leading to his two terms as the United States' first President.[2] There is still debate among scholars concerning the rebellion's influence on the Constitution and its ratification.