Upholding the constitutionality of the Smith ACt, which states:
> 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof-- Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize", with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
>From the case:
The indictment charged the petitioners with wilfully and knowingly conspiring (1) to organize as the Communist Party of the United States of America a society, group and assembly of persons who teach and advocate the overthrow and destruction of the Government of the United States by force and violence, and (2) knowingly and wilfully to advocate and teach the duty and necessity of overthrowing and destroying the Government of the United States by force and violence. The indictment further alleged that s 2 of the Smith Act proscribes these acts and that any conspiracy to take such action is a violation of s 3 of the Act.
The indictment charged the petitioners with wilfully and knowingly conspiring (1) to organize as the Communist Party of the United States of America a society, group and assembly of persons who teach and advocate the overthrow and destruction of the Government of the United States by force and violence, and (2) knowingly and wilfully to advocate and teach the duty and necessity of overthrowing and destroying the Government of the United States by force and violence. The indictment further alleged that s 2 of the Smith Act proscribes these acts and that any conspiracy to take such action is a violation of s 3 of the Act.
341 U.S. at *497.
The very language of the Smith Act negates the interpretation which petitioners would have us impose on that Act. It is directed at advocacy, not discussion. Thus, the trial judge properly charged the jury that they could not convict if they found that petitioners did 'no more than pursue peaceful studies and discussions or teaching and advocacy in the realm of ideas.' He further charged that it was not unlawful 'to conduct in an American college and university a course explaining the philosophical theories set forth in the books which have been placed in evidence.' Such a charge is in strict accord with the statutory language, and illustrates the meaning to be placed on those words. Congress did not intend to eradicate the free discussion of political theories, to destroy the traditional rights of Americans to discuss and evaluate ideas without fear of governmental sanction. Rather Congress was concerned with the very kind of activity in which the evidence showed these petitioners engaged. Id. at *502.
That is, you can talk about it, you just can't say it's true and suggest that anyone act on it. That is consistent with free discussion.
Justice Black said, dissenting:
not. These petitioners were not charged with an attempt to overthrow the Government. They were not charged with overt acts of any kind designed to overthrow the Government. They were not even charged with saying anything or writing anything designed to overthrow the Government. The charge was that they agreed to assemble and to talk and publish certain ideas at a later date: The indictment is that they conspired to organize the Communist Party and to use speech or newspapers and other publications in the future to teach and advocate the forcible overthrow of the Government. No matter how it is worded, this is a virulent form of prior censorship of speech and press, which I believe the First Amendment forbids. I would hold s 3 of the Smith Act authorizing this prior restraint unconstitutional on its face and as applied.
Id. at 579.
I don't speculate about what the Brit Anti-Terrorsim law involves.
>From: Daniel Davies <d_squared_2002 at yahoo.co.uk>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Subject: Re: Free Speech
>Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 16:13:12 +0000 (GMT)
>
>
>--- Justin Schwartz <jkschw at hotmail.com> wrote: >
> >For example, the Dennis case,
> > upholding the conviction of the
> > CPUSA leaders for (I am not kidding) conspiring to
> > advocate the overthrow of
> > the government (really! but this would pass muster
> > under the Brit
> > antiterrorism law)
>
>It wouldn't, unless I am more than usually mistaken,
>or unless the Dennis case wasn't the one which a quick
>google search pulls up. In order to be considered a
>"supporter" of a terrorist organisation for purposes
>of the Act, you have to do a damn sight more than
>merely wear a t-shirt or even shout "Up the IRA, Kill
>the Queen!". You have to collect names and addresses,
>shake the tin or allow your house to be used to hide
>weapons or people. The concept of a supporter was
>invented in order to stop some very nasty
>organisations (and some utterly harmless ones with
>poor press agents) from playing fast-and-loose with
>the definition of a "member".
>
>Obviously the Brits would still get you under the
>harassment law, or any of the other myriad of actually
>appalling legislation we have, but the Terrorism act
>is, IMO, nothing like as bad as some of our other
>laws, and not unjustified in the circumstances, given
>that people were, until quite recently, being blown up
>and shot over political decisions which were nothing
>to do with them.
>
>dd, frequent occupant of two major terrorist targets.
>
>PS: For all that it is occasionally abused to protect
>American servicemen, the vast majority of uses of the
>Race Relations Act are entirely beneficial. And
>before Jeff Noonan chips in with his periodic remark
>about McLibel (which I wasn't ignoring to be snooty,
>btw, I just happened to be on the post limit both
>times, sorry), I'll join anyone in condemnation of our
>libel laws.
>
>=====
>"Imagine the Duchess's feelings
>You could have pierced her with swords
>To find her youngest son liked Lenin
>And sold the Daily Worker near the House of Lords" -- Noel Coward
>
>____________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
>or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com