social-media
Is calling for &quot;Bastille Day&quot; on a forum illegal?
<p>In <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/09/judges-denies-bail-for-accused-nsa-leaker-reality-winner-after-not-guilty-plea/?outputType=comment&amp;commentID=washingtonpost.com/ECHO/item/7cc0f46c-e40e-40bf-b2f3-098d08cb8eac" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this posting</a> I argued for people who have access to classified information to start leaking information. Someone replied saying that my posting is in itself a violation of the law:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>You do understand that this post is treason under federal law right? You are calling for an over throw of the government, that's what "Bastille Day" was, the start of the French revolution... your comments are very, very dangerous, and I know for a fact... the secrete service, FBI, NSA and other government agencies are monitoring ALL of these boards and they know your true identity... This is a very, very foolish post, and it is too late to take it down they know where you are... not smart.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There is such a law, the Smith Act: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385" rel="nofollow noreferrer">18 USC 2385</a> (Advocating overthrow of Government), which says in part</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>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...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>shall be punished. My reading of the offending text is that it states the desirability of an action which some people probably think would result in the overthrow of the US government by force, but does not directly commit the offending act.</p>

<p>In <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/354/298/case.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Yates v. United States</a>, 354 U.S. 298, the Supreme Court ruled that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>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</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Although the court did not rule that the act was unconstitutional, it limited its application to the point of virtual unenforcibility.</p>

<p>Speech can only be limited when it presents a "clear and present danger". As ruled in <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Brandenburg v. Ohio</a> 395 U.S. 444, speech cannot be restricted</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing
  imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action</p>
</blockquote>
