18 U.S.C. § 2385 – Advocating overthrow of Government

18 U.S. Code § 2385 – Advocating Overthrow of Government

The First Amendment protects our right to free speech. But the government has tried to limit speech during wartime. Let’s look at the history and implications of a law called 18 U.S. Code § 2385.

What does the law say?

This law makes it illegal to advocate or teach overthrowing the U.S. government. Here’s a summary:

• You can’t advocate overthrowing the federal, state, or local government by force or violence.
• You can’t print, publish, or distribute materials advocating this.
• You can’t organize groups to advocate this.

If convicted, you can be fined or imprisoned up to 20 years. Yikes!

Where did this law come from?

The U.S. has tried to limit speech in wartime before. Like the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. And laws during World War 1 targeting anti-war activism and radical groups.

In 1940, Congress passed the Smith Act. It aimed to punish people advocating overthrowing the government. It was named after Rep. Howard Smith.

In 1957, the law was updated as 18 U.S. Code § 2385. But it kept the same purpose – restricting speech seen as dangerous by the government.

Famous uses of this law

The Smith Act was used to prosecute communists and socialists in the 1940s-50s. Some major examples:

• Leaders of the Socialist Workers Party were convicted in 1941.
• Eugene Dennis and other leaders of the Communist Party were convicted in 1949.

These cases limited free speech. But the Supreme Court eventually reversed some convictions. It ruled that advocating ideas is legal – only directly inciting violence is not.

What are the arguments around this law?

There are good-faith arguments on both sides:

• Supporters say this law is needed to protect the country from groups seeking to overthrow democracy.
• Critics say it goes too far and stifles free speech and activism.

Some questions people debate:

• Should we limit speech that could incite violence?
• Or does outlawing ideas just drive them underground?
• What’s the line between radical speech and directly inciting criminal acts?

These are complex issues. People of conscience can disagree on where to draw the lines.

Recent controversies

There have been some recent controversies over whether this law should be enforced against groups seen as extreme or anti-government, like:

• Right-wing militias
• Radical left-wing protesters
• Groups advocating Puerto Rican independence

Some argue we should prosecute those seen as threatening democracy. But others say doing so would violate free speech.

This debate will likely continue, as governments try to balance security with civil liberties.

The takeaway

18 U.S. Code § 2385 was meant to punish those seen as threatening the government. But it’s also been used to stifle dissent.

Debates over free speech versus security go back to the nation’s founding. There are good arguments on both sides. It’s an issue we’re still working to get right.

In the end, we should be wary of outlawing ideas. Our democracy is strong enough to allow radical speech, and meet it with more speech. Suppressing dissent may cause more harm than good.

But reasonable people can disagree! This issue brings up core debates over liberty versus order. There are many views worth listening to.

References

Here are some references used in this article:

• 18 U.S. Code § 2385 full text
• 18 U.S. Code § 2385 – GovInfo
• Alien and Sedition Acts
• Smith Act on Wikipedia
• Article on Daily Kos