Election Challenges, Protests, Conspiracy Theories, and Moral Panics

[Belsnickel]

(12-10-2020, 10:20 PM)Au165 Wrote: Not hyperbolic at all. Meets the statute of seditious conspiracy to a T. If this scenario does not fall within the reason for making such a law then what does? What else do you call a group of people conspiring to attempt to overthrow a legally elected President? Again, I am not there yet, as I said this is in reference to further actions beyond a SCOTUS ruling as nothing after that can be argued as within anyone’s “legal right” .

I would have said to charge with advocating to overthrow the government but that statute is written in a way requiring violence, or urging of such, which hasn’t been apparent as of yet. Seditious conspiracy only requires an attempt to overthrow but does not require violence.

I have to disagree. The statute is referring to the overthrowing, or attempt thereof, of the government. That is not what we see, here. The current government is the Trump administration and the current Congress and they are not attempting to overthrow that, but rather continue it moving forward. Their actions are wrong, I agree, but they do not fall within the seditious conspiracy statute.

Now, any threats of violence to prevent the peaceful transition of power from taking place could fit the seditious conspiracy language as it would be the prevention of the execution of a law by force. However, the legal actions are not attempts to prevent the execution of these laws by force, which is the requirement under the statute.