JUDY KUBLALSINGH-MATTHEWS
THERE'S AN unspoken judicial philosophy for regulating free speech. Ideas, be they good, bad, benign or malicious are free to compete in the marketplace of ideas. The ultimate good is best achieved by free trade of ideas. The best test of truth is the power of the idea to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.
Thus far no sensible argument has emerged that suggests that the hammer that has most sorely landed on the head of a middle-aged Canadian vlogger, doing his vlogging thing, has been accepted in the local arena of ideas. The scepticism, confusion and general disdain of the average person may well be a fine example of ideas at war with itself.
The Sedition Act is a relic of colonial-era law from a bygone era when freedom of ideas and expression were not treated as the rights they are today. The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 abolished the common law offences of sedition and seditious libel in England. And some goodly Englishmen there made freedom of thought and expression a protected right in the UK under the Human Rights Act 1998.
The last major case in England involved Salman Rushdie and his publisher who were accused of seditious libel. Rushdie's The Satanic Verses was framed as a 'scurrilous attack on the Muslim religion,' causing riots in the UK, and a severance of diplomatic ties between the UK and Iran. Ultimately, the application failed after the judges found there was no seditious intent against any of the UK's democratic institutions.
Under our dinosaur-era Sedition Act, the communication, publication or distribution of any statement or information must have a 'seditious intent.' This intent is broadly defined in common law as one that 'encourages the violent overthrow of democratic institutions.'
In layman's terms, and using an extremely broad licence, it means that you must not say or publish any bad words about the government, or the justice system, that incites violence, nor should you form flash mobs, particularly if armed with flaming torches and pitchforks, to seek to overthrow any of the aforementioned branches. A broader interpretation may be you must intend to mash up the place or incite others to do the same.
Truth be told, the Sedition Act in all its previous controversial incarnations has been up to no good. In the US, in the early 20th century, the only journalists prosecuted under the Sedition Act were editors of Democratic-Republican newspapers. One such person indicted for sedition was Democratic-Republican Congressman Matthew Lyon, a harsh critic of president Adams. Lyon successfully conducted his re-election campaign from jail in 1800.
The US Supreme Court accepted broad interpretations of both the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act, and in a series of cases upheld convictions inconsistent with the First Amendment.
In Debs v United States, an outspoken socialist and presidential candidate was imprisoned for simply pledging support for three men who had been jailed for violating the Espionage and Sedition Acts. After h
