No, the Supreme Court has not said exactly that, because in fact the CP and others were not advocating sabotage, destabilizing, insurrection.
The Supreme Court has made it quite clear that "sabotaging, destabilizing" are not protected actions. More than that, no Supreme Court decision has ever stopped the government itself from doing whatever it thought was necessary to preserve its rule. Regarding RCTV-- they did not just broadcast editorials, opinions... the management of RCTV actively worked with the sections of the military, the church, landowners, and business to plan the overthrow of the democratically elected government. There is also significant evidence of contact with and assistance from the US embassy. Now that might be called treason, a capital offense. Losing a corporate license is getting off lightly. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David B. Shemano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] NACLA on RCTV > Raghu writes: > > >> Once again ignoring the snideness, why do you think socialism is > >> incompatible with freedom of expression? Surely you would admit that > >> freedom of expression does not give you a license to broadcast > >> propaganda that is plainly designed to sabotage and destabilise the > >> government? > > The answer to your second question is that yes, it does give you the right. The US Supreme Court, in cases dealing with the Communist Party and others, has essentially said that yes, you can advocate the sabotage and destabilization of the government (other than in wartime). Yes, advocacy can cross the line into action, which is diffferent. But if a radio station or television station started broadcasting editorials that the government should be overthrown and sharia instituted, or started broadcasting Taliban propoganda videos, the government would not have the authority to terminate the license based upon the content of the editorials. > > Regarding your first question, it is a large topic and I am losing energy in the heat of my building. I really would encourage you to look at Friedman's argument and then critique it. > > David Shemano >
