Though I would like to hear what members from other countries have to say, this question is aimed more at members from the US.

When does "Free Speach" end, and Sedition begin?

Excellent question FG.

In 1798 when the federal government of the US was in the midst of an impending possible conflict with France the Federalist congress passed the first Alien and Sedition act. No aliens and no French agents were ever discovered or arrested. The act was used however to silence Thomas Jefferson and followers of his Republican party from being critical of what Adam's government was saying. In essence the Federalists were whipping up fears of French agents and possible war and the Republicans under Jefferson's leadership were being critical and opposing the Federalists' assertions. The sedition act was then used to silence the opposition, hence ending the myth of free speech though millions of Americans still vehemently believe they have this "right". One must remember that "rights" granted by a government are at the sole discretion of that government and they can take them away or modify them as they see fit.

The only free speech that exists in ANY government is that which the government allows. Hence it matters not what we, the citizens, think but in point of fact at any point we are deemed to be too critical we may suddenly find ourselves facing charges of sedition. Unlike treason, which requires an ACT, sedition is merely words and the determination is a highly subjective definition of "malicious criticism of the government". What one person considers malicious another may not because it goes towards the intent of the author and until we develop the ability to read minds what one person may or may not intend is between him and his maker unless he decides to share with the rest of us.

It is the decision of the government itself as to what it considers to be malicious criticism of itself. Hardly the stuff of fair play in any realm. It is my own personal opinion that the Alien and Sedition acts themselves are unconstitutional and should be challenged as violating the First Amendment to the consitution. I am aware that in times of war such things curbing free speech may in deed be necessary BUT according to the system of government in the United States of America Congress shall pass no law which violates the Constitution. If it is necessary to alter the Constitution you MUST pass an amendment. Full stop.

The concept of Freedom of Speech and sedition according to the Acts passed by congress cannot co-exist. If combined they would present an oxymoron of monumental proportions. It would be best if the Constitution were amended and the First Amendment was more clearly delineated according to its original intent, to tolerate dissent and the rights of those who dissent, and limiting it in scope. As it stands its worth is limited to merely fueling a myth but as most people never have the courage to push the envelope and are content to go along with the crowd they never learn that there are glass walls all around them.

Rant over.

I really am not as worried about freedom of speach as it pertains to wartime goings-on as much as I am concerned about what speach the media places on the highest mountaintop to be shouted with the weight of god behind it.

Last year we had a good look at this issue due to the fact the a filmmaker was butchered by a Muslim. He had offended the islamic faith on many more then 20 occasion and payed the price.
The whole debate on free speach sprang to life and to what extend can you plead "free speech". And of course the question who'll judge whether or not you crossed the line. If you are interested let me know and I'll look up some english url's on the matter.

Originally Posted by Forrest_Gump

Though I would like to hear what members from other countries have to say, this question is aimed more at members from the US.

When does "Free Speach" end, and Sedition begin?

Whenever the speech disagrees with me

No seriously, I think it crosses the line when the speech consists in orders and instructions to kill people.

I am interested Ted if you would be so kind.

Ted is talking about Van Gogh but I leave him the honor to find some urls in English eh eh.

In short it boiled down to this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3974179.stm

It resulted in an outcry of the people saying that free speech was in danger. My point of view is different. Theo van Gogh was also a columnist and wrote very provocative if not degrading and insulting. On television he would call muslim (close your eyes Mods) "goat-****ers", "retards" and many many more things. He would call the islam a backward and retarded faith and crossed the lines of decency on many occasions.

Imo he hid behind the right on free speech to publicly insult many people varying from politicians to fellow journalists to many religions. Nowadays many people have forgotten how to argue solidly and soundly and start calling eachother names. This is not speech but abuse and is therefor not incorporated under the protection of free speech.
Erasmus, Hugo Grotius, Galileo Galilei etc. were persecuted and were protagonists of free speech. When this was given by kings and governments I bet they didn't meant it to protect flaming, insulting, name calling and other verbal filth. He pissed off so many people and this insane guy decided to take the law in his own hands. He motivated this as an act for the twisted vision of Islam he proclaims. End of the matter is that he is locked up for the rest of his miserable life, and that will be many many years to come!

As a general rule, Your right to swing your fist around ends when it hits the end of my nose. Free speech is exactly that: Free. So long as there is nothing involved that takes away the rights of another, its is up to the individual.

Originally Posted by Ted

In short it boiled down to this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3974179.stm

It resulted in an outcry of the people saying that free speech was in danger. My point of view is different. Theo van Gogh was also a columnist and wrote very provocative if not degrading and insulting. On television he would call muslim (close your eyes Mods) "goat-****ers", "retards" and many many more things. He would call the islam a backward and retarded faith and crossed the lines of decency on many occasions.

Imo he hid behind the right on free speech to publicly insult many people varying from politicians to fellow journalists to many religions. Nowadays many people have forgotten how to argue solidly and soundly and start calling eachother names. This is not speech but abuse and is therefor not incorporated under the protection of free speech.
Erasmus, Hugo Grotius, Galileo Galilei etc. were persecuted and were protagonists of free speech. When this was given by kings and governments I bet they didn't meant it to protect flaming, insulting, name calling and other verbal filth. He pissed off so many people and this insane guy decided to take the law in his own hands. He motivated this as an act for the twisted vision of Islam he proclaims. End of the matter is that he is locked up for the rest of his miserable life, and that will be many many years to come!

Ted, it sure sounds like you're a muslim. In the U.S. free speech means just that. FREE SPEECH!

You can say anyhing you wish to about me, and I can respond in kind. You seem to be sympathetic to this butcher that murderded the journalist in cold bood. No amount of verbal insult justifies cold blooded murder.

According to the news reports that I read, the overwhelming majority of the Dutch people were outraged, and rightfully so. For crimes like this, it's a shame you don't have the death penalty.