3 ms·
> Mindblowing censorship. There's a lot of spin on what the law actually is. Some of it by people mis-interpreting guidelines issued by bureaucrats who were th
by maratd 15y ago
> Mindblowing censorship.
There's a lot of spin on what the law actually is. Some of it by people mis-interpreting guidelines issued by bureaucrats who were themselves exaggerating a bit.
Treason is an offense in the US, dictated by the constitution. Advocacy of treason is also an offense. The entire point of passing through customs is that goods that are legal elsewhere, but illegal in the US, are blocked. While it's perfectly OK to make videos about the destruction of the US if you're in Saudi Arabia, it is NOT ok to do that in the US. So it gets blocked at customs.
- _delirium 15y agoAdvocacy of treason in a general sense is legal in the U.S.; Yates v. US (1957) held that "advocacy of forcible overthrow of the government as an abstract doctrine" was protected by the First Amendment, and therefore someone couldn't be jailed solely on the basis that they were a member of the Communist Party and advocated a communist revolution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States) To prosecute (after Yates) you'd need some additional evidence that an individual's advocacy wasn't merely abstract, general advocacy of revolution, but concrete and imminent enough to present a "clear and present danger", e.g. because of specific steps being taken to actually overthrow the government in the near future. Similarly, a state actually seceding from the U.S. remains illegal, but someone merely abstractly advocating that a state ought to secede, as the Texas governor half-seriously did, and many "Sons of the Confederacy" type groups more earnestly do, is legal and not considered punishable as treason, assuming that the groups aren't actively planning raids of federal forts or something.
- Vivtek 15y agoApparently DHS considers the Occupy movement treason, then.