It's the Al Capone gambit. Capone was not jailed for his criminal activities, but for not reporting the income from them. Martha Stewart went to jail, not for insider trading, but for lying about it. My guess is that this particular piece of legislation violates first amendment rights, so this is just legislative grandstanding, an activity not unknown these days,
> My guess is that this particular piece of legislation violates first amendment rights
They've got that one covered.
> Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize, require or establish censorship or to limit in any way or infringe upon freedom of the press or of speech as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and no regulation shall be promulgated hereunder having that effect.
Fortunately I don't live in S. C., so I'm free to construe it any way I want.
Martha Stewart was celebrity in the wrong place at the wrong time when someone needed to make a point.
The government interprets laws for it's convenience, yes. Occasionally to our benefit, often otherwise.
The law in the article certainly violates the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments as they've generally been interpreted (freedom of speech, right to privacy, right avoid self-incrimination). But such laws have been in force in this country before so I wouldn't be sure they can't appear again. At this moment, though, this will probably turn out to be an embarrassment.
My point is that there are enough laws that a determined prosecutor can get you on something even if he cant on the big crime. Perhaps Capone is not a good example because he committed a lot of crimes that we all think deserve jail time. Martha Stewart is a more interesting case in this context. She was never convicted of insider trading and probably could not have, but she could not keep her mouth shut. She lied about something something that probably was not a crime, However the lying was enough to get her jail time. This legislation is a trap to catch people who would not otherwise be guilty of a crime.
Any organization or person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or by both fine and imprisonment.
Well, then when they arrest someone they get to cite one more violation ("you didn't register your illegal activity!") to "justify" a bigger punishment, for free.
Whether this is just stupid or a convenience arranged for law enforcement (see comment below about bigger punishment), my guess is that the definition of 'subversive activity' in the legislation is impractically broad. The SC legislature doesn't have the mandate to convict people of crimes (excepting impeachment of elected officials). Its members are not judges.
Besides treason, which by necessity has a very low rate of conviction (the last being CIA mole Robert Hanssen last decade), I don't see how wording like "overthrowing the government of the United State" could be upheld when there is no parallel in whatever offense one was actually convicted for.
Otherwise, levying fines like this is pretty blatant extrajudicial punishment.
I just find it humorous to picture a person who _would_ advocate the violent overthrow of the government thinking, "Hmm... I really should head down to City Hall and fill out a form declaring my political position. I'd hate to get slapped with a fine!"
I'm going to create a new group and the whole point of it will be to overthrow the US government have it be replaced with chipmunks and then register on this and pay the $5.
