Sedition: A Blameless Crime?

Throughout the annals of history, one would notice that, for certain intents and purposes, rulers impose restrictions on free speech, mostly as a way to wield and maintain power, and to subjugate the masses in a bid to maintain civil peace.

Crimes relating to speech restrictions may come under the categories: Libel and sedition.

While libel may be referred to as the criminal slandering of the individual, the definition of sedition may be far harder to decipher.

From Oxford Dictionary's viewpoint:

Sedition

- noun conduct or speech inciting rebellion against the authority of a state or monarch.

HISTORY OF SEDITION ACT

The history of the sedition act itself owns its roots to a more archaic, imperialistic past. The first Sedition Act in recorded history first surfaced in Great Britain during the Elizebethan Era (1590). Running in conjunction with the Treason Act, the law was created as a safeguard against "poison tongues", i.e intellectuals who would under wise speak ill of the monarch as well as the local clergy.

Subsequently, the Americans decided to incorporate it under their Constitution (The Sedition Act of 1798, 1861 and 1918). Initially created to silence political dissent, it was amended to suit the needs of war during World War I, as Congress dictated that morale was of paramount importance, since seditious remarks in oral and written form would threaten to deflate the morale of the American Army.

The Sedition Act was subsequently exported to Malaya in 1948 (At that time, Malaya was a loose confederation of Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei) as a countermeasure against the communist insurgency, as the communists then were inciting racial and religious violence in Malaya.

Modern Application of The Sedition Act

Given the imperial nature of the sedition act, it is quite surprising to note that its tenets are still being incorporated in certain countries, particularly former British colonies which have achieved independence, as a means to subjugate free speech.

The truth is, the definition of seditious acts can be a tad ambiguous. For example the Seditious Acts of Singapore, for example, defines Sedition as:

(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency

(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;

(b) to excite the citizens or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;

(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;

(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens or the residents in Singapore;

(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

The idea that 'raising discontent or disaffection' becoming an offence is highly controversial; how does one define "discontentment or disaffection" in a non-legalistic sense?

Such loose-meaning words open the act for potential abuse, given the lack of coherence to the meaning of the word 'sedition' by the law-makers.

Sedition: Not Quite Criminal

Due to the lack of a proper definition, any charge of sedition against individuals becomes somewhat debatable.

The arrest of a person on charges of sedition because he deemed responsible for depicting Jesus in a bad light (caught drawing Jesus as baby eating vampire), seems so trifle a charge, it is almost laughable, if only it didn't happen.

If, depicting Jesus is seen as seditious, wouldn't publishers of the da Vinci code be guilty of the same crime, or for that matter, the author as well?

Such a non-violent expression cannot be constituted as a crime, and even if that were so, it would seem almost blameless. Almost, that is, until a 16th century law comes into play