When does free speech become treason?

I'd like to start a sincere (not flame-throwin') topic. It seems to me that yes, while we in this country have the freedom to say whatever we want about our government, some step over the line. For example, an ordinary citizen cannot even joke about assassinating a president without legal consequences, although I know the current president has been the brunt of such jokes by talk show hosts, commedianes, etc. I hear a lot of UNconstructive crticism here in the U.S.; a lot of criticism, but no alternate solutions that are feasible. I hear the diatribe of our sworn, worst enemies abroad and then hear talk from certain leftists at home and realize that the only thing which distinguishes one from the other is that one can prove he is a legal U.S. citizen while the other cannot. So, my question is, When does free speech cross the line and become treasonous against this country?

I already know some simpletons out there are addicted to mere Bush-bashing and will inevitably resort to such. But I'd really like to know from the brighter ones -- current administration aside --when does free speech turn to treason?

When you're telling government secrets to other countries.

Great topic Snake!!!

Looking up the "exact" definition, it is pretty much I assume what we all think:


Treason: "Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies."

Given we are fortunate enough to have freedom of speech in our country, and knowing that some of that free speech may not please everyone, I think, for the most part "speech" is merely words.

HOWEVER, our freedom of speech "would" be treasonous as in DV's example (and the most known definition) of giving secret info to another country; and although I'm not sure if it would fall under treason or not, of course threatening to kill your President wouldn't be included as freedom of speech, as in threatening anyone's life.

I guess anything one might intentionally say with a purpose of malice,to cause harm to, or betray one's country would be considered treasonous. I am curious though for other examples of "Speech" being treasonous.

TIS

Treason is giving assistance to enemies of the state. #

Freedom of speech relates to what you can say in public without legal sanction.

So the two concepts aren't really related.

But come on Snake... what you're really saying is that you think people who offer "a lot of criticism, but no alternate solutions" are just as bad as "our sworn, worst enemies abroad", except that the former just so happen to be US citizens.

You seem to imply that severe and trenchant criticism of the US government should be punished as treason, and that is so very wrong.

Treason is plotting actively against the government of your nation-state. If this involves any speech you use while carrying out your plot or plotting the word "the" can be considered "treason."

This question assumes the worst of those who differ from the neo-Conservative, far right, Bushie worshipping, "yes sir, yes sir, three bags full sir," "kell 'em all an led gaaad sort 'em out," "dey're taaaken r jaaabs" set and assumes that people in the centre or the centre-left no matter where they're from do not have legitimate arguments. The question therefore is logically weak because it is by its very nature argumentative and not conducive to rational, coherent, lucid, productive political debate. Regardless of the poser of the question, or his/her motives the question is accusatorial and is shaky to begin with because of this. The questioner may well say "until you prove your patriotism keep your frikkkin mouth shut." Now, obviously no one in their right mind would say such a thing be they American, Canadian, Afghani, Iraqi, Palestinian, Israeli or whatever...

However, bushie the retarded elf has created an aura of fear, an Orwellian, 1984-like atmosphere as far as his influence carries and the byproduct is questions like this.

Free speech, is free speech. If you have to ask what or what isn't free speech, you don't know what free speech or what it means to be truly free really is. Free speech is protected in Canada by The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in The States by The Bill of Rights. Thank Allah, God, Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus whatever Almighty for these documents.

People are truly free when they accept, understand, appreciate and act on their freedom. If they don't, they are just wrapped in a cloud of amusement, a pawn for the government or any other large organization to do any thing they please. Be free, think free, live free, speak free and you'll BE free.

That's wrong....

the words you use in plotting or carrying out the plot would be evidence of the treason but they would not constitute the treason itself.

Free speech stops were respect begins.

Treason of your country is voluntarily plotting against it.

No, your aren't plotting against your country when you criticize it. :rolleyes:

Treason is lying to yourself.

See? My, how the lefties looove to read into the most objective question! Cracks me up, man.

(See my last paragraph in my first post.)

You mean like when you tell yourself that your poetry is any good!?

Yes, if you were a bad poet, and you told yourself your poetry was good, then you'd be committing treason, I guess.

Snake, frankly I'm surprised that you're capable of writing any thing beyond anti LEFT or Centrist or Centre-left diatribes. Poetry eh?! About what, killing every one who isn't you?! Grow up!

:rolleyes:

Glad you agree.

Cutie... !

Is leaking the identity of a CIA operative treasonous?

I think that it depends on what exactly constitutes the leak, who the (C.I.A.) agent is and what his/her operation exactly is? Some major Republicans may have committed major treason a while back by outing a female agent I think...forget her name.

I don't know if your question is objective or not, but it's definitely incorrect and vague.

Just look at Dokter Lucy's quote
Anyways, I just replied with my thougts.

That would be Valerie Plame, and you bring up an interesting question. According to an interview with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald after Libby's indictment:

"The special counsel's office said that Plame's CIA employment was classified and that her connection to the CIA "was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community" prior to Novak's column. Disclosing such information had "the potential to damage the national security," the office said in a news release."


Now, "if" leaking this info did damage national security in some manner,(btw, for those who don't know, she was working undercover in a fake consultant firm, but acutally working on WMD info) would it treason? And would it be because of freedom of speech on Libby's part,(or anyone else involved) assuming he KNEW it could be potentially dangerous? Somehow I can't connect the freedom of speech to treason. It would just seem treasonous.

TIS

T.I.S. and others, I think that Mr. Libby is not only guilty of treason, he should be tried, easily convicted after having been given a FAIR trial with the best defense at his means and disposal, convicted and prosecuted according to the judge to the fullest extent of the law. I believe, that Mr. Libby did know about the damage this could do to North American and International security and that he should serve time because of it.

Snake, justice in this case would be somewhat, POETIC, don't you think?! :rolleyes:

As for Mr. Novak, well he should just shut his ignorant, ugly, two faced, hypocritical, abnormal downright retarded mouth up unless he has valuable contributions to make to rational political discourse.

Should NY Times correspondant Herbert Matthews be considered a traitor for going to the Sierra Maestra and confirming and propogating (essentially "inventing") Fidel Castro and bringing worldwide sympathy to his "free" and "democratic" cause?

If that hurt U.S. interests as significantly as what Novakie and that miscreant Libby did, then and only then yes!