Lawyer 2 Lawyer
Lawyer 2 Lawyer
Jan 8, 2021
Defining Sedition under the Trump Presidency
Play • 27 min

Sedition is defined as “conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.” Throughout the Trump presidency, the word “sedition” has been used by both parties to describe various actions alleged to have crossed a legal line. For instance, Attorney General Barr suggested to prosecutors to file sedition charges against protesters in wake of protests across the country.

On January 6, 2021, Pro-Trump protestors stormed the U.S. Capitol as lawmakers were in the process of certifying Electoral College votes in favor of President Elect-Biden. So are any of these actions considered seditious? And if so, what is being done about it?

On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by constitutional law professor Carlton Larson from UC Davis School of Law, as they talk about sedition as it applies to the actions of the current administration, identify the legal line between sedition and free speech, and define what is and isn't sedition.

Special thanks to our sponsor, LEX Reception.

Discussed in this episode: 

We the People
We the People
National Constitution Center
Arizona Election Rules at SCOTUS
On March 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. The case centers on two of Arizona’s election rules: 1. Arizona does not count provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct and 2. its ballot-collection law permits only certain persons (family and household members, caregivers, mail carriers, and elections officials) to handle another person’s completed early ballot. The DNC challenged the rules, arguing that both discriminate against racial minorities in Arizona. On appeal, the Supreme Court will consider whether both policies violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965—which prohibits nationally any election laws or policies that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color”—and whether the second violates the 15th Amendment—which states that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Chris Kieser of Pacific Legal Foundation, who wrote a brief in support of Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, and Sean Morales-Doyle of the Brennan Center, who wrote a brief in support of the DNC, explore the case and its potential implications in conversation with Jeffrey Rosen. Resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
55 min
KQED's The California Report
KQED's The California Report
KQED
Warehouse Industry Booming in Inland Empire Despite Concerns
Southern California’s Inland Empire has been transformed in recent years by the growth of the warehouse and logistics industry. While many argue it's a job creator, those living in the region have major environmental concerns.  Guest: Orlando Mayorquin, Journalism Student, Report for CalMatters The L.A. City Council voted 14 to 1 to approve a hazard pay ordinance requiring workers at supermarkets and drug stores to be paid an extra $5 an hour. Several other cities and counties have passed similar legislation. Reporter: Matt Guilhem, KCRW Officials with the San Diego Unified School District have unveiled a plan to reopen schools for classroom instruction starting in April. But not all parents are impressed. Reporter: Joe Hong, KPBS Kaiser Permanente is using the mountains of health data it has on millions of Californians to help figure out who’s at higher risk of getting COVID-19. It's also helping the health provider pinpoint who should get vaccinated first. Reporter: Polly Stryker, KQED Many have been targets of people who don't agree with health orders or think the pandemic is a hoax. While the problems were elevated during the height of the pandemic, some are still taking added precautions to this day. Reporter: Laura Klivans, KQED The new lawsuit has been filed by a trust for survivors of wildfires started by Pacific Gas & Electric equipment. They claim these officials were negligent when it comes to ensuring the public's safety. Guest: Lily Jamali, The California Report
18 min
Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast
Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast
Legal Talk Network
Imminent Lawless Action
In 1919, The US Supreme Court in Schenck v. United States established the rule that if words create a "clear and present danger" to incite criminal activity or violence, the government has the right to prevent and punish that speech. For nearly fifty years, through wars and the Red Scare, that rule was applied largely without question. Then, in the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, a white supremacist in Ohio, convicted for an inflammatory speech at a Klan rally, challenged his conviction saying it violated his First Amendment rights...and the Court agreed. A new test was born which has lasted for now more than 50 years. But, having been formulated in an era of much more limited media, does it still hold up today? In this episode of Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast from Popehat.com, host Ken White explores how the First Amendment has handled inflammatory speech, from Schenck to the current Brandenburg standard and all the way up to today. With the help of Professors David Cunningham and Richard Wilson, Ken digs into what makes the “imminent lawless action” test of Brandenburg such an important turning point in First Amendment law but also investigates whether the proliferation of online communication necessitates a renewed look at the standards set out in a “simpler” time. Professor David Cunningham is professor and Chair of Sociology at Washington University in St. Louis. Professor Richard Wilson is the Gladstein Distinguished Chair of Human Rights and Professor of Law and Anthropology at UConn School of Law.
34 min
More episodes
Search
Clear search
Close search
Google apps
Main menu