Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
The concept of law.
I think that you're confused with a concept that has been and is being debated more than you could possibly knew, or perhaps you can surprise me once again...
Again the discussion is of ethics.
Do you want to argue that the background of all ethics is not morals?
Again you did not pay attention to the Article, Section, Clause that was provided and what it states.

Morals have only two outcomes - right and wrong. Ethics have multiple outcomes. The discussion is of ethics, not morals. Freedom of speech is not a moral issue but one of ethics.
Again the same. There's tons of books on philosophy of law that talk about moral as the last and inevitable resource of all judges. I can present you with some if you want, but of course you could probably dismiss it in the process of translation.
Oh I like contradictions - however sedition is not a right. By its very definition the state has the obligation to prosecute sedition.
As evident once again by the above mentioned quote from the constitution.
But what about advocating sedition? Murdering anyone is not a right, however you can talk about murdering an specific person or an specific class in songs and not get persecuted or get a conviction... Perhaps I cannot walk the walk, but I can talk the talk (is that how it goes? ).
Questioning economic or governmental policy is not sedition. The examples that you quoted is not sedition since it does not advocate the destruction of the stat, nor the overthrow of the government, so no the text you used would not muster or generate sedition in the matter in which sedition is defined, in the constitution or by myself. So yes indeed it does seem that your reaching.
Mmmm...Marxist theory now doesn't advocate the violent overthrowing of the government...
You have confused yourself about what sedition is. No point discussing the issue farther until you understand what the term means and what it entails.
Here I will help you with the definition of sedition as provided by Websters with the approiate portion bolded for ease of reading
I love this condecendent talk......It must be a problem of translation then, since we don't use the same word to describe it's incitement and engagement. Now, the exception made by the courts only talks about advocating sedition...Why none of those examples constitutes sedition? In case you didn't noticed your explanation was not sufficient.