Rush Limbaugh calls for military coup against Obama

[ecoli]

The Smith Act includes the phrase "advocates the desirability" of forcibly overthrowing the government. Aren't "hope" and "desirability" synonymous in this context?

Has the Smith act ever been tested in the supreme court? It seems high-time to get rid of this legislation.

 

It doesn't make sense to make attempting to overthrow the government illegal. If enough people thought that the government needed overthrowing so that it became a real threat then they just might be on to something, and the legality of the situation would be pretty much a moot point (and couldn't this be covered under treason, or something anyway)?

 

Making yourself known as one who desires the overthrow of the government seems to go against freedom of speech and unenforceable at any rate.

 

Rush is just an idiot though.

[Phi for All]

Has the Smith act ever been tested in the supreme court? It seems high-time to get rid of this legislation.

I believe many alleged communists were tried and convicted under the Smith Act during the McCarthy era, but I remember reading where many of the convictions were overturned as well, due to unconstitutionality.

 

It doesn't make sense to make attempting to overthrow the government illegal. If enough people thought that the government needed overthrowing so that it became a real threat then they just might be on to something, and the legality of the situation would be pretty much a moot point (and couldn't this be covered under treason, or something anyway)?

I think it's the "forcible" part that makes this legitimately illegal. We have provisions which would allow the electorate to replace government officials and even the whole government, but through voting on legislation designed to do so, not by force outside the law.

 

Making yourself known as one who desires the overthrow of the government seems to go against freedom of speech and unenforceable at any rate.

It's one thing (and possibly a good thing) to be known as someone who wants to change what is wrong with the system by using what is right about it. I would love to see sugar tariffs and subsidies (and any elected official who supports them) removed, as a step towards less influence from lobbies and big business, but only by changing the laws and the lawmakers. "Overthrowing" is completely different and should be, since it bypasses the electoral process and therefore the will of the people, even if all the people agreed that it was needed.

 

Rush is just an idiot though.

An idiot with an enormous following, which makes him a dangerous idiot.

[ecoli]

 

It's one thing (and possibly a good thing) to be known as someone who wants to change what is wrong with the system by using what is right about it. I would love to see sugar tariffs and subsidies (and any elected official who supports them) removed, as a step towards less influence from lobbies and big business, but only by changing the laws and the lawmakers. "Overthrowing" is completely different and should be, since it bypasses the electoral process and therefore the will of the people, even if all the people agreed that it was needed

 

I'm thinking of a V for Vendetta situation though, where we're no longer concerned about specific tariffs because the whole system has corrupted itself. I don't think its likely, and not any time soon, but I think it should be ok to allow provisions by which a government is dismantled and replaced under a new/different charter.

 

I think this is the reason why states are allowed to maintain freestanding militias and that secession should be allowed.

 

Sometimes a system can be corrupted so thoroughly that it cannot be feasibly corrected via internal means. Sometimes, outside force isn't only desirable but a necessity.

 

Making it illegal to express such desires is already a big problem with our system. I don't think it was ever meant to happen.

[Phi for All]

I'm thinking of a V for Vendetta situation though, where we're no longer concerned about specific tariffs because the whole system has corrupted itself. I don't think its likely, and not any time soon, but I think it should be ok to allow provisions by which a government is dismantled and replaced under a new/different charter.

 

I think this is the reason why states are allowed to maintain freestanding militias and that secession should be allowed.

 

Sometimes a system can be corrupted so thoroughly that it cannot be feasibly corrected via internal means. Sometimes, outside force isn't only desirable but a necessity.

 

Making it illegal to express such desires is already a big problem with our system. I don't think it was ever meant to happen.

This is part of what bothered me about rushing to sign the Patriot Act. Did we allow legislation that may curb our right to push for reform in legal ways, thus making force our only option? Will someone in the near future be called a terrorist if they start trying to enact reform that removes those in power or tries to significantly change the corrupt system? Could legal reform be called a breach of current national security?

[D H]

Has the Smith act ever been tested in the supreme court? It seems high-time to get rid of this legislation.

Phi for All (post #22) linked to the Wikipedia article on the Smith Act. That article says

Prosecutions continued until a series of United States Supreme Court decisions in 1957 threw out numerous convictions under the Smith Act as unconstitutional. The statute remains on the books, however.

In short, it is one of the myriad of statutes that remain on the books but are essentially unenforceable.

 

One of the key cases was Yates v. United States.

The Smith Act does not prohibit advocacy and teaching of forcible overthrow of the Government as an abstract principle, divorced from any effort to instigate action to that end.

 

The Smith Act as written did not pass the clear and present danger smell test. Is Rush a clear and present danger?

 

Rush is just an idiot though.

Clearly. Is he a dangerous idiot?

[Phi for All]

Is [Rush Limbaugh] a dangerous idiot?

Only if he had some way of spreading his idiocy on a national level.

[ecoli]

Only if he had some way of spreading his idiocy on a national level.

 

You mean like a nationally syndicated radio show?

 

 

I still think that to qualify as a dangerous idiot, he'd have to have mobilization power. Nobody is entertaining the thought that a coup is actually going to be brought on Mr. Obama. Its nonsense.

 

Have any civilians even made serious assassination attempts lately (that could be reasonably linked to Rush's words?)

 

The more ridiculous claims he makes, the more quickly he proves his irrelevancy.

[Pangloss]

Ultimately what's probably most significant here is the fact that he's been able to make statements like that (which I now agree are completely off the chart) and the *public* has not demanded that he be taken off the air, e.g. advertisers called in outrage, etc.

[bascule]

Is Rush a clear and present danger?

 

No.

 

He should be free to say what he said.

 

Ultimately what's probably most significant here is the fact that he's been able to make statements like that (which I now agree are completely off the chart) and the *public* has not demanded that he be taken off the air, e.g. advertisers called in outrage, etc.

 

As in the case of Glenn Beck, his advertisers will look at the size of the audience, compare that to the volume of angry phone calls, laugh, and shrug it off.

 

Speaking of Fox News and their advertisers, anyone been watching it lately? Their ads certainly appeal to what I'll call the "Wal-Mart audience". (not that Wal-Mart is bad, but I prefer to shop at Target. Guess I'm just an elitist.) I mean, jeezus, they were running ads for KY jelly, and I am not kidding. I also saw an ad for some sort of telecourse on how to settle criminal charges out of court with the DA, "Beat The System - And Win!" or something like that. Also some ad for some plastic trinket to stick in your hair to add volume, because apparently you're too dumb to operate a bottle of hairspray. And some sort of tool for cleaning disgusting hair clogs out of your drain, which repeatedly pictured disgusting hair clogs. Wow, really makes me want to buy your product.

[Pangloss]

Sure, it's the Wal-Mart channel. FNC is conservative-populist, not conservative-Republican. It reflects the Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck "popular revolt" perspective, not so much the Rush Limbaugh "GOP uber alles" perspective.