Regardless of one's opinion of the Port Protests, it's quite disturbing to me that countless rants in the blogsphere and elsewhere offer sad evidence of ignorance of the law and of the foundation upon which American democracy is based.

One entry in particular on "Hot Air" really irritated me. It was entitled, "Video: Insurgency in Olympia, WA." In it, the author suggests that the actions of the individuals involved in the Port Protests amount to sedition.

Sedition is conduct or language intended to incite rebellion against a lawful government.

Civil disobedience, on the other hand, is the refusal to obey certain laws or governmental demands for the purpose of influencing legislation or government policy, characterized by the employment of such nonviolent techniques as boycotting, picketing, and nonpayment of taxes.

The stated views of the individuals involved in the Port Protests amounted to objection to the United States' involvement in Iraq. A clear analogy may be drawn to Dr. Martin Luther King's civil rights protests organized NOT to incite rebellion, but rather to promote change in the existing structure of government.

This abuse of terminology is one example of the quagmire first predicted by James Madison in 1787. In the Federalist No. 10, Madison posited that, "the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party; but by the superior force of an interested and over-bearing majority." That majoritarian faction that today twists and corrupts the truth in ways such as this is a greater threat to American democracy than most citizens realize.