SC Gov't punishes free speech

Does government have the right to punish lawful free speech? If government did punish lawful free speech what would that mean?

    This is amazing! First there was the MIAC report now there's the "Subversive Activities Registration Act" in South Carolina. It requires "subversive organizations" to register with the secretary of state and is punishable by a $25,000 fine or 10 years in jail, or both. It defines a subversive organization" as "(1) "Subversive organization" means every corporation, society, association, camp, group, bund, political party, assembly, body or organization, composed of two or more persons, which directly or indirectly advocates, advises, teaches or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States, of this State or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means;. It is careful to add exemptions for "do not apply to any labor union or religious, fraternal or patriotic organization, society or association, or their members, whose objectives and aims do not contemplate the overthrow of the government of the United States, of this State or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means. "

    I see some free speech violations here and I don't understand why this act finds it necessary to make criminals of a group of people and then in another section exempts them from being criminals, sort of. Why include them in the first place? Sounds to me like the SC legislature might be subversive to the Constitution.

    http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t23c029.htm

You make some good points. I absolutely agree you shouldn't use your right to free speech to harm someone.   However, there are laws to protect us from people who would abuse this right. For example, if a protester detonates a bomb and claims free speech, he/she has committed a crime. This person can claim their right to free speech all they want but the have endangered society. Endangering society is the crime not protesting whatever it was they were protesting. It is the act of harm that should be punished not the "peaceful" act of free speech.

I also agree there is a great threat of terrorism and that some people want to destroy America simply for existing. And there are people who would like to cause harm to others they disagree with. Terrorism is wrong! It should be punished! However, just the act of disagreeing with others is not wrong. Punishing someone for disagreement is wrong!

This country has a history of encouraging debate on a multitude of subjects. It's hard to debate if you can't disagree. Disagreement is the reason this country was founded. If there wasn't disagreement with King Charles there wouldn't have been a reason to leave and start a new country.

IMHO this law is about silencing debate. The want you to register your right to disagree or be fined and or imprisoned? What!?!

I was under the same impression when I first read this law too. That's part of the problem. It's a very sneaky way of controlling the rights of people and making it appear as if you are protecting them. It seems to be the way many politicians do things!

But if you look at it, besides addressing terrorism, it adds that free speech rights will be taken away...or at least you will have to register as "subversive" to be able to enjoy them.    I mean IMHO the language is intentionally ambiguous.

And who gets to decide who "advocates, advises, teaches," etc. I had to look up "propriety". It means, among other things, "conformity to what is socially acceptable in conduct or speech". That just made me angry all over again. Who do these guys think they are. They were not voted in to become tyrants and they can, and hopefully will, be voted out! But look at the full phrase "propriety of controlling". That can defined as most anything. In fact most of this law can be defined as most anything.

As far as "controlling", since when do the people of the US not have the right to control the government? Isn't that what voting is about, a way to have control over the government? You know a politician doesn't do what they are hired to do and they are voted out.

As far as "unlawful means", many things are unlawful. The way this law is written, if you and a friend support or "advise" another person to J-Walk during a socially unacceptable protest, you could be arrested or fined if you didn't first register as "subversive".

Did you see the movie "Minority Report"? It's about a guy who's being chased down for murder, except he hasn't committed it yet. Is that the next thing after we "conform to what is socially acceptable" we're held accountable for what we might think? Okay, maybe that's a little out there, but did you ever think any US citizen would have to "register" as "subversive" to have a socially unacceptable opinion?

I'm going to bed...need to sign off now...goodnight

I visited given links.  It's very good.