Below is my column in USA Today on the revival of sedition as a speech crime in the United States. Despite my criticism of the Democratic members of Congress over their recent message to American military personnel, this is not a prosecutorial offense and would collapse quickly in court. More importantly, it is the return of a crime long ago criticized by James Madison as a “monster” that should not be prosecuted in the United States.
Here is the column:
Not since the Adams administration has there been more talk of sedition in the United States. After Democratic congressional members posted a video encouraging military personnel to refuse to follow illegal orders from the Trump administration, cries of sedition were again heard in the Capitol as many called for prosecution.
These lawmakers, however, are not guilty of any federal crimes, let alone sedition. However, the controversy should be a reminder that we have yet to break our sedition addiction, a crime that should be struck from our books as largely as a speech crime.
The video was reckless and worthy of criticism. Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Michigan, later admitted that she did not know of any actual illegal orders given to the military. Even so, the video seemed to encourage military personnel to refuse to carry out orders and fueled the narrative on the left that the United States was in the grips of a “fascist” or authoritarian takeover.
The president has prevailed in many of the challenges to his authority, and he is likely to prevail in his use of force against alleged drug-smuggling boats outside the country.
Regardless of the outcome of these cases, they are being litigated in court, and the administration has complied with adverse decisions.
Trump joins a long tradition of noxious ‘sedition’ accusations
President Donald Trump and others had good cause to object, but then reached for the familiar and infamous crime of seditious speech. The president even raised the possibility of the death penalty, though he later insisted that he was not threatening the congressional members.
Any effort to prosecute these Democratic lawmakers would collapse immediately upon filing with a federal court. The video is protected speech. The military has long recognized that personnel may refuse illegal orders, and the United States helped establish this principle in the Nuremberg trials after World War II.
The government cannot punish members or any citizen for raising such rules or even suggesting that the president is engaged in unlawful conduct. I would expect the Supreme Court to unanimously uphold the equally unanimous lower courts in rejecting any such criminal charge based on this video.
Yet, sedition has always served as such as a political and legal purpose. As I discuss in my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,”sedition was a noxious import from Great Britain. British judges had balked at the effort to accuse citizens of treason for things like telling bawdy jokes about the queen in some pub.
The response of the crown was to create a new crime that was a type of treason-lite offense with equally heavy penalties. The charges were brought in a new secret court, the infamous Star Chamber. Figures were routinely charged with such offenses as giving “base and distracting speeches.”
Under British rule, a wide array of speech and even dress was prosecuted as sedition or other offenses. Jonathan White, the speaker of the Pennsylvania House, was charged with sedition after observing to guests in his home that “the proposed laws were cursed laws” and then expressing his exasperation by exclaiming, “Hang it, damn them all.”
Free speech is uniquely American, and precious
Once the United States was formed, such crimes ran against the grain of the First Amendment. The most uniquely American part of the Constitution was our sweeping protection for free speech. While many parts of the Constitution were adopted from the British system, this was a uniquely American protection. The British never protected free speech in such terms and still don’t.
James Madison would later refer to sedition prosecutions as “a monster that must forever disgrace its parents.” Indeed, it is. In every age of rage, we release that monster when we are very afraid or very angry. We release it on our neighbors to punish them for dangerous thoughts or views.
In my book, I call for the country to finally fulfill Madison’s call to eliminate sedition and break our sedition addiction once and for all. We can punish people for their conduct without criminalizing their speech.
The problem is that punishing people for their views or values is irresistible for many in government. I was highly critical of the return of sedition-based charges against a few of the defendants in the riot on Jan. 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol. The charges were virtually superfluous with the other charges, but the Biden administration clearly wanted to add the patina of sedition to the prosecution.
That is why it is so distressing to see the return of the cries of sedition now.
Again, these Democratic congressional members can be rightfully criticized for the video, but we can amplify those objections without resorting to the scourge of sedition.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Very good, Professional Turley. Now explain to us why what Barack Obama did regarding orchestrating a coup against a sitting President Trump was not treason.
Now explain to us why what Barack Obama did regarding orchestrating a coup against a sitting President Trump was not treason.
Obama ordered his Attorney Generals and FBI Directors and others to repeatedly perjure themselves in Judge Boasberg’s FISA courts, using his felonious “Trump-Russia Dossier” as the centerpiece of those felonies. Anyone attempting to claim his AGs and FBI Directors and others did it on their own while Obama had absolutely no idea of what they were doing with that dossier of his really should try spinning their fantasies somewhere else.
What they did does satisfy all the elements of the offence that are required for the crime of perjury and other crimes they committed in their Crossfire Hurricane attempt to take out Trump.
The crime of treason also has elements of law that must be met before it is charged. It’s popular use as a pejorative, doesn’t make a legitimate crime where all those elements of the offence have been met.
Why not demand that Professor Turley explain to you why the elements of the crime of treason have not been met?
Wrote about this a couple years ago. I mean, yeah:
https://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2021/01/13/political-prosecutions/
Trump was IMPEACHED TWICE for NOTHING. He was FINED $500 Million for paying back a loan, and having a CRAZY women “accuse” him of something from 20 years ago!
NY changed laws to PROSECUTE Trump! Biden White House worked with Georgia to JAIL Trump and his people
I have NO PROBLEM Jailing Democrats by the 1000’s, including the judges OBVIOUSLY BREAKING LAWS!!!
“I have NO PROBLEM . . .”
Maybe not now.
But what about the *future* — when there’s a D administration?
Trump was fined $500M for submitting falsified documents on a loan he paid back. It’s the falsification that’s illegal, not paying it back.
As I recall, the use of this word and it’s associated criminal implications began with the Democratic National Communist Party attempt (in some cases successful) to prosecute anyone associated with the Trump claim of Election Fraud. It was extended to anyone associated with being within the US Capital property on January 6th. There was nearly a word of opposition from the legal community as Jack Smith and the holdovers from the Mueller Investigation attempted to prosecute DJT for a host of crimes to include 18 2387. So my question to Professor Turley is where is that line???
Democrats JAILED 1000’s of PEACEFUL Republicans for Jan 6th and questioning the election. GOP has to STOP being NICE against Democrat Civil War!
I WANT 1000’s of Democrats jailed for the 1000’s of crimes…ACTUAL CRIMES they weren’t entrapped into. Brief List!
1) Russian Hoax, Trump Persecution
2) Protecting bidens, other crimes
3) Jan 6th entrapment
4) Vote Crimes
5) Helping Illegals & Stealing
6) Child endangerment
7) Who call for Violence
8) COVID
You’re in a Qult. See help.
Rabble:
When confronted with an inconvenient truth, and without a rebuttal regarding the content of the message, the savage turns to character attacks against the poster, hoping to cow them into submission.
I’m surprised that Professor Turley would use the arguments he uses to bar prosecutions of sedition. The law and the nation have moved far beyond the times of John Adams, and Congress has properly enacted legislation to address some of the justiciable forms of seditious behavior in ways that do not reduce our First Amendment rights of free speech. For example, another commenter has mentioned 18 USC 2387, a statute that appears to address what the President and others commonly refer to as sedition.
There are many instances of people, including attorneys, who use words to describe something that may have the appearance of illegality but, in fact, would hardly be considered a cause of action. How often do we talk of “nuisances” or “obscenities” that come to our attention but would never survive bringing a cause of action? Most people have a historical understanding of what sedition means and what constitutes seditious behavior. The “Seditious Six” presents an excellent example of common law intuition.
It’s somewhat like Justice Potter Stewart’s famous line in 1964 about how to determine the threshold test for obscenity charges: “I know it when I see it.” Leave it to the people to understand this better than, or at least as well as, the courts. It’s the same with “sedition.” I know it, and everyone else knows it when they see it. When it comes to these sorts of issues, the court of public opinion knows sedition when it sees it.
” surprised that Professor Turley would use the arguments he uses to bar prosecutions of sedition.” Are you a constitutional lawyer?
” surprised that Professor Turley would use the arguments he uses to bar prosecutions of sedition.” Are you a constitutional lawyer?
You a constitutional lawyer yourself? No? Any kind of lawyer that could offer a rebuttal to what was contained in that post? Or any kind of sentient human being that could offer a rebuttal – rather than just a performing sealion who has escaped the circus after tiring of being put up on a stool and barking while balancing a beach ball on the end of your nose?
Sealioning:
Sealioning is a form of adolescent trolling where someone persistently demands answers to insincere questions to provoke a response, often pretending to seek a civil debate while actually trying to exhaust or frustrate others with no intention of real discourse. This behavior is characterized by a facade of politeness and a refusal to acknowledge previous answers. Often used as a tactic by whining Democrats in online forums and podcasts
“I know it, and everyone else knows it when they see it.”
So you want to double-down on nonobjective “law” with ex post facto “law.”
Who is safe under that system of arbitrary laws? The friends of those who wield political power. And only so long as they remain friends.
Sam: You and Anon missed the point I was trying to make, which is that we often use words that have deep legal meanings in colloquial ways to express our dislike of someone’s actions. Non-objective law is anathema to a court of law, but fairly common in the court of public opinion that has no power to charge but enormous power to judge.
I wish the Professor had discussed the grey area between speech and conduct. We know from Larrabee that retired military drawing a pension are subject to the UCMJ. So Kelly could be courtmartialed under Articles 94 (Mutiny and Sedition) and 134 (Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline). Every seaman his own lawyer? But don’t worry about guessing wrong, because “we have your back”?
Rabble:
Yeah, they “have our back(s).” Like, they’ll be the first to shoot us in the back for their own gains. Those 6 were part of the many who voted to DENY my paycheck for a month. Thanks to the current admin for finding away around these snakes.
It is fair to disagree with the law, but the law itself is quite clear. It’s right there in 18 U.S. Code § 2387. So, the question is what was the intent of Kelly and his seidtious cabal. Clearly, Kelly and the rest of the Democrats were encouraging members of the military to disobey orders from civilian leadership in the Trump administration.
18 U.S. Code § 2387
(a)Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:
(1)advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States…
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten 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.
The 1st Amendment supersedes US Code.
The 1st Amendment supersedes US Code.
Try that defense by publicly declaring in public that Barack Obama must be murdered as his punishment for what he did to the country.
Or if you’re uncomfortable doing that, yell “he’s got an AR-15!!!” in a crowded movie theater.
I think you are correct, Professor. Not a crime. Should not be a crime. They should pay other ways, hopefully with their seat. They aren’t just reprehensible The D party is the party of fascism. They will turn us into Europe as soon a they get a chance.
The D party is the party of fascism. No it is not. Think.
I do think. And it us.
You’re 90 years and not capable of thinking clearly.
Rabble:
When confronted with an inconvenient truth, and without a rebuttal regarding the content of the message, the savage turns to character attacks against the poster, hoping to cow them into submission.
Correction us–> is
Or maybe you meant us. It is us.
The video didn’t actually encourage military personnel to refuse orders, as he falsely claims. Instead, it simply reminded service members that they have the right to disobey unlawful orders, which is clearly stated in military law. There’s nothing wrong with calling attention to this point. Professor Turley agrees that this is correct and is pointing it out accurately. However, he’s mistaken in calling it “reckless.”
Encourage / reminds? That’s the hill you want to stand on?
X says The video didn’t actually encourage military personnel to refuse orders, as he falsely claims. Instead, it simply reminded service members that they have the right to disobey unlawful orders, which is clearly stated in military law.
That old communist Democrat party apparatchik favorite: Nothing To See Here, Please Believe X and The Hateful Six, Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes™
This actually was just exactly what it looks like. A carefully planned and coordinated group action of insulting and defaming the most senior officers in the military (and federal law enforcement and the CIA), by insinuating to those under their command that their most senior leadership were issuing them illegal commands. Using their former service in the military in attempted appeal to authority.
An attempt to do so with the glaringly obvious inability to provide any example they could articulate as they did so, and no example they could articulate when being challenged and questioned after doing so.
Which extends to insulting those under the leadership they’re insulting as well: implying that those serving under them are smart enough to be in the CIA, the FBI, the military – but they’re simply too stupid to recognize an illegal command from the officers set above them, unless they have the invaluable help and reminder of these six.
The pilots flying the same jet that low ranking Captain Kelly did are smart enough to fly that same aircraft in more combat missions than he did – but not as smart as he is to be able to recognize an illegal order. (which of course, now Senator Kelly could not provide them with an example of)
What’s most telling about X’s pathetic lie for today is that this was supposedly well meaning on the part of these six.
Yet during Biden’s presidency, not a single one of them (never mind all of them getting together to plot this) issued a similar command regarding the most senior leaders of the military, federal law enforcement, the CIA, etc. Not once while they watched four years of The Oval Office House Plant as Commander In Chief, holding the nuclear football and declaring that his First Felon Bagman Son was his most senior advisor.
Not even speaking out in alarm after watching our most senior military leadership willingly abandon hundreds of American citizens in Afghanistan, to instead focus on finding “white rage” in the ranks and a major effort to push Critical Racist Marxist Theory down through the chain of command.
Nor speaking out in alarm during or even now as we watched the most senior leadership in the FBI and DoJ continuing to commit felonies to deprive Americans of their civil rights by color of law.
George X’s fraudulent defense of the Hate Filled Six has all the credibility of those hate filled six fraudulently claiming it was normal to issue such a warning whether the president was Obama, Biden, or Trump.
The duty to not obey illegal orders is taught in basic training. All ranks understand or should understand that and have examples to guide their decision making. This Dem “political advertisement” will have little impact on the troops. Most are too intelligent and motivated to fall for that BS. Furthermore it reveals two things: 1Dems arent very bright and 2 They think our troops are as intellectually challenged as they are.
It’s nice to read a post here that makes sense to me.
Oddly, Professor Turley cites sedition for what some Democratic lawmakers said. Bill Barr, a close friend of the Professor, raised the idea of using sedition during Trump’s first term. I don’t remember him chastising Barr over it.
He is right that it is protected speech. It is also not “reckless” to remind soldiers that they can indeed disobey illegal orders and that they can indeed be prosecuted for following them. This is no different from what some Democrats like AOC and Jeffries are telling immigrants how to exercise their constitutional rights when dealing with ICE, such as remaining inside their homes and not answering the door or exercising their due process rights. Professor Turley “neglects” Republicans’ use of intimidation and threats of investigation to force people to cower to their demands.
The growing scandal over the drug boats and the killing of survivors under Hegseth’s orders is the perfect example of why Democrat lawmakers made their statements reminding military members that it is indeed their duty to disobey unlawful orders. Now we have the White House haphazardly trying to scapegoat an admiral for Hegseth’s apparent disdain for “woke” rules of engagement. He issued the order, and the military did indeed kill survivors. We are not at war with Venezuela. Both Republicans and Democrats are seriously scrutinizing these events because the White House keeps making ridiculous claims about the strikes being legal. After all, Trump’s sycophants at the DOJ created a memo saying it’s ok.
Engaging, destroying, narco drug runners, officially classified as terrorists, is seditious? Good to know. Thanks!
Lots of claimed “facts” with no evidence to back them up in this post.
Google search the following headlines and educate yourself regarding the terrorist component of drug smuggling. Your ignorance is breathtaking:
https://rietjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/EN_RIET_2022_N7_The-link-between-terrorism-and-drug-trafficking-in-Africa_ana-aguilera_art3.pdf
The little-understood connection between Islamic terror and drug profits
Mexican Cartels Smuggle Terrorists into U.S. Through Rural Texas Border Region | Judicial Watch
Organized Crime Module 16 Key Issues: Terrorism and drug trafficking
The Sahel is now an epicenter of drug smuggling. That is terrible news for everyone.
Redefining Mexican Drug Cartels – Police Chief Magazine
FBI — International Drug Trafficking and Terrorism
Drug trafficking as irregular warfare — and what can be done about it
Worse than any horror film’: Inside a Los Zetas cartel ‘kitchen
You’re saying that unbiased google has all the answers? Your gullibility is breathtaking.
georgie says “We are not at war with Venezuela. Both Republicans and Democrats are seriously scrutinizing these events because the White House keeps making ridiculous claims about the strikes being legal.”
Tell us. georgie (who knows everything about everything), did Obama’s drones kill hundreds of CIVILIANS in Pakistan and Somalia and others? Were we at war with Pakistan, goergie? Were we at war with Somalia, georgie? Did Obama get permission from Congress, georgie? Go ahead, do your search on Wikipedia. we’ll wait.
MATT VAN EPPS: “My opponent wants to defund police, abolish prisons, fund transgender surgeries on kids . . .” – TN-7 Election is TODAY – Video
https://commoncts.blogspot.com/2025/12/matt-van-epps-my-opponent-wants-to.html
Sounds seditious.
Professor Turley, you think like a lawyer and certainly understand the law. Most people do not. When they see statements that seem to encourage sedition, that’s how they react. Even members of political parties do this. There is a single benefit, however, and that is the vagueness of the “sedition-like” language does caution the language people use, and that it should be tempered on the side of caution. We are a nation of laws, but can the nation withstand the continual pressing the laws right up to a needed supreme court decision?
In the present case, many might agree that it’s ok to tell people not to obey unlawful orders, not having the slighted idea of what that might be, excepting extreme cases. This statement (a political commercial) was meant to scare citizens and to hate Trump even more.
You obviously was never in the military. We were trained in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Suggest the people here who think they know what they’re talking about, review it first before commenting. See: https://ucmj.us.
It seems this sort of thing is part of our founding history, lest you Boston’s Committee of Correspondence and other colonial committees of safety and committees of inspection (or observation).
The D’s seem hell bent on restoring the “reign of witches” associated with the Adams administration. Here’s hoping that there are enough people with reason to oppose those policies.
“If the game runs sometime against us at home, we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake.” (Thomas Jefferson)
Oh look, Ken Burns showed up.
“. . . this is a game where principles are at stake.”
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if today’s politicians spoke like that.
They would have my undivided attention. Nowadays 95% of the population would not understand it.
“Nowadays 95% of the population would not understand it.”
Tragically, true.
And here’s a remarkable contrast: The _Federalist Papers_ were written for the general public.
I forgot to mention that usually the determination as to whether an order was or was not lawful is made at the court martial of the soldier who refused to follow it. Orders are to be presumed lawful.
This is a huge ask of our military, determining whether a just-snapped order is legal or not in the demands of the moment, knowing that loss of reputation, benefits, freedom, or even life, may well be the outcome.
If orders are presumed lawful, then there is no act someone in the military could perform that they can be held liable for, in spite of how obviously illegal the act is. If Trump gave the order to the Navy Seals to find and kill every Democratic candidate in every election race they, according to you, would unquestioningly follow that order and then Trump could order the military to not convene a court so that it could never be found illegal.
People, please just buy his damn book so he’ll shut-up about it.
If you think that would shut Professor Turley up, I have a lovely bridge you might be interested in buying.
Stupid comment ellen.
It’s a joke, Nonny. Get a sense of humor. Perhaps you would consider that worth purchase?
Have you bought your copy yet?
Trying to walk back a stupid comment, does not make it any less stupid. But that’s expected from Karens.
For certain Turley is trying to cash in on the gullible before the Orange Goose stops laying rotten eggs.
Cry baby…
If you hate this blog so much, what in the hell come here?
Yeah, you’re the guy with two “collage” degrees huh? Some good it has done for you. Oh, and dummy, try a grammar checker.
Nice try loser.
You defend a fool who hates this website.
Try aagin.
Hey dustoff, finally shut up, you’re constant childish snarking keeps blowing up in your face.
Why don’t you quit reading his website and commenting to get him to shut up? Of course you won’t do that, trolls enjoy spewing their nonsense way to much.
Are you using multiple identities tp spew your silly nonsense? Multiple personality disorder huh?
Are you using multiple identities
___________________________________
From a guy using Anonymous.
LOL How many multiple identities are you using.
Why don’t you quit reading his website and commenting to get him to shut up? Of course you won’t do that, trolls enjoy spewing their nonsense way to much.
And you keep reading them. Geeezzzz….
I would agree that the video does not make a case for sedition. However, it is worth noting that those in the video might be considered to have run afoul of Section 2387, which establishes the criminality of attempting to dissuade military members from doing their duty.
It is interesting that no such protests were raised over Obama drone-killing children and some U.S. citizens, innocent ones, back a bit. Surely that dwarfs this current matter.
Lets reverse this.
The GOP was doing the same thing to biden.
It would be on every MSN station 7/24.
Learn to write a coherent sentence Dustoff.
Rabble:
When confronted with an inconvenient truth, and without a rebuttal regarding the content of the message, the savage turns to character attacks against the poster, hoping to cow them into submission.
Just what we need, another lawyer on this blog. Gotta ask, don’t you think the Trump admin already knows their legal options?
“Obama drone-killing children and some U.S. citizens,…” but he apologized. So all is good.
Rabble:
Can I buy some of whatever you’re on?