Should They Be Prosecuted Under Anti-Sedition Laws?

There’s a kerfuffle presently going on about AG Barr’s comments that rioters should be prosecuted under federal anti-sedition statutes. Here’s what Christian Britschqi concludes at it at Reason.com:

Arson, vandalism, and other acts of rioting have accompanied many of the anti-police-brutality protests around the country. But since this violence is often adjacent to protected First Amendment activities, law enforcement’s response needs to be careful, targeted, and proportionate. We should try to stop the violence and vandalism, but peaceful protesters shouldn’t be unjustly punished or otherwise dissuaded from exercising their rights to free speech and assembly.

By encouraging prosecutors to be as punitive as possible, Barr appears to be taking the exact opposite approach. His suggestion that they dust off sedition laws should alarm all civil liberties advocates.

So far the commentary about it I’ve found is very much along “where you sit is where you stand” lines. So far the major law blogs haven’t commented on it. It’s unclear to me that the suggestion actually has any legal merit.

As a matter of policy I think it’s an error. I would pursue the easiest and least controversial charges first to secure as many convictions as quickly as I possibly could and then let the civil law system take care of the rioters and the organizations and individuals who supported them. Summary execution would have been lenient by comparison.

5 comments… add one
  • Greyshambler Link

    Our local Police department still is pursuing violent actors from our minor riots, there’s just too much good video evidence not to. I think local convictions should disrupt their lives sufficiently without federal charges but some property damages were to federal buildings.
    I still like Barr but he’s showing his frustration with mayors and councils in liberal cities.

  • PD Shaw Link

    I’m not sure the rioters are trying to overthrow the U.S. government. In comparison, the Insurrection Act authorizes the federal government to deploy the military to localities where federal or state law is being impeded by rampant violent criminality and widespread rioting. IOW, there is a federal interest in seeing to the enforcement of state and local laws, but I don’t read the anti-sedition laws has having a similar localized concern. OTOH, to extent someone kills a man because he supports a certain candidate for President, that’s probably a criminal violation of civil rights laws.

  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    The under covered story was Barr ordered an investigation of Seattle’s mayor for civil rights violations (for CHOP / CHAZ).

    The mayor of Seattle is a former US district attorney(!).

  • walt moffett Link

    Couple of things to ponder, the collapse of the case against the Hutaree, the Chicago 7 trial, the books, lecture tours, movies, etc. High probability some prosecutors unable/unwilling to stand that noise and expense. Also, defense attorneys dragging out the cases in anticipation of a more progressive US Attorney, etc. Don’t think we’ll see many convictions and the few imprisoned that are will seen as the second coming of Bobbie Sands, Nelson Mandela, by the chattering class.

  • steve Link

    This sounds a lot like hate laws which are mostly stupid. Just enforce existing laws.

    Steve

Leave a Comment