Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.

Not since the Adams administration has there been more talk of sedition in the United States. After Democratic congressional members posted a video encouraging military personnel to refuse to follow illegal orders from the Trump administration, cries of sedition were again heard in the Capitol as many called for prosecution.

These lawmakers, however, are not guilty of any federal crimes, let alone sedition. However, the controversy should be a reminder that we have yet to break our sedition addiction, a crime that should be struck from our books as largely as a speech crime.

The video was reckless and worthy of criticism. Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Michigan, later admitted that she did not know of any actual illegal orders given to the military. Even so, the video seemed to encourage military personnel to refuse to carry out orders and fueled the narrative on the left that the United States was in the grips of a "fascist" or authoritarian takeover.

The president has prevailed in many of the challenges to his authority, and he is likely to prevail in his use of force against alleged drug-smuggling boats outside the country.

Regardless of the outcome of these cases, they are being litigated in court, and the administration has complied with adverse decisions.

Trump joins a long tradition of noxious 'sedition' accusations

President Donald Trump and others had good cause to object, but then reached for the familiar and infamous crime of seditious speech. The president even raised the possibility of the death penalty, though he later insisted that he was not threatening the congressional members.

Any effort to prosecute these Democratic lawmakers would collapse immediately upon filing with a federal court. The video is protected speech. The military has long recognized that personnel may refuse illegal orders, and the United States helped establish this principle in the Nuremberg trials after World War II.

The government cannot punish members or any citizen for raising such rules or even suggesting that the president is engaged in unlawful conduct. I would expect the Supreme Court to unanimously uphold the equally unanimous lower courts in rejecting any such criminal charge based on this video.

Yet, sedition has always served as such as a political and legal purpose. As I discuss in my book "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,"sedition was a noxious import from Great Britain. British judges had balked at the effort to accuse citizens of treason for things like telling bawdy jokes about the queen in some pubs.

The response of the crown was to create a new crime that was a type of treason-lite offense with equally heavy penalties. The charges were brought in a new secret court, the infamous Star Chamber. Figures were routinely charged with such offenses as giving “base and distracting speeches.”

Under British rule, a wide array of speech and even dress was prosecuted as sedition or other offenses. Jonathan White, the speaker of the Pennsylvania House, was charged with sedition after observing to guests in his home that “the proposed laws were cursed laws” and then expressing his exasperation by exclaiming, “Hang it, damn them all.”

Free speech is uniquely American, and precious

Once the United States was formed, such crimes ran against the grain of the First Amendment. The most uniquely American part of the Constitution was our sweeping protection for free speech. While many parts of the Constitution were adopted from the British system, this was a uniquely American protection. The British never protected free speech in such terms and still don't.

However, within a few years, President John Adams and his administration would reintroduce sedition prosecutions in the United States. Adams used the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest his political opponents.

James Madison would later refer to sedition prosecutions as "a monster that must forever disgrace its parents.” Indeed, it is. In every age of rage, we release that monster when we are very afraid or very angry. We release it on our neighbors to punish them for dangerous thoughts or views.

In my book, I call for the country to finally fulfill Madison's call to eliminate sedition and break our sedition addiction once and for all. We can punish people for their conduct without criminalizing their speech.

The problem is that punishing people for their views or values is irresistible for many in government. I was highly critical of the return of sedition-based charges against a few of the defendants in the riot on Jan. 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol. The charges were virtually superfluous with the other charges, but the Biden administration clearly wanted to add the patina of sedition to the prosecution.

That is why it is so distressing to see the return of the cries of sedition now.

Again, these Democratic congressional members can be rightfully criticized for the video, but we can amplify those objections without resorting to the scourge of sedition.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump joins a long tradition of faulty sedition claims | Opinion

Reporting by Jonathan Turley, Opinion contributor / USA TODAY

USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect