Chapter Six offers a careful reading of the first two sedition trials of Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1898 and 1908). While existing scholarship has studied his subversive performances within the courtroom, I extend this analysis to incorporate his efforts at winning executive mercy and commutation from prison. More than any other political leader, Tilak spent his imprisonment exhausting every avenue to petition and appeal against his sentence. This included multiple approaches to the Privy Council and serious plans to petition the House of Lords. In an important and original breakthrough in anticolonial political thought, it was when Tilak failed to win freedom on the basis of justice alone that he connected the availability of mercy to the curtailment of political rights in India.

This chapter traces the development of the essay in the context of a world of early eighteenth-century sociability constituted by coffee shops, periodicals, and a variety of informal clubs and societies. Never simply a reflection of a prior social reality, the periodical essay developed as part of a self-consciously created mythos of ‘polite literature’ designed to regulate manners in the inchoate and often contentious social world from which it represented itself as emerging. In the skilful hands of Joseph Addison and Richard Steele, among others, the polite essay shaped values of agreeableness, conversability, and formal equality that helped define a remarkably durable idea of polite literary culture still in play – if increasingly represented as passing away – for essayists like William Hazlitt and Leigh Hunt writing a century later.

The focus of the chapter is the overriding assumption in Shia fiqh in general and theories of the velayat-e faqih in particular that society is in need of proactive protection and guidance. The notion of velayat is neither exclusively nor predominantly Shia in origin and development. However, it has played a central role in Shia theology. The logic underlying the notion of velayat-e faqih is that society needs proper guidance and protection, both from the hostile world in which it exists and from itself. Guidance needs to be provided by a specialist of fiqh, a mujtahid who has reached the esteemed position of marja‘iyat and is a “source of emulation,” a marja‘-e taqlid. Protection, or velayat, meanwhile, in its fullest sense is also to be provided by a specialist of fiqh, a faqih, who would be selected to serve in a system based on the velayat-e faqih. In relation to Iran, the clergy have long assumed that Iranian society needs protection from a number of clear and present dangers, be they communism, secular nationalism, unchecked republicanism, modernity, indiscriminate autocracy, or, more recently, the reformist “sedition” (fitna).

The Introduction begins by outlining the generative tension of the early modern public sphere: debate and defamation, free speech and false news, went hand in hand. Libels were often vicious and violent. Yet they were also essential to England’s emerging media ecosystem. Drawing from public sphere theory, the first main section conceptualizes the viral circulation of libels across speech, manuscript, print, and performance; and it makes the case that theater – urban and provincial, amateur and professional alike – was central to their multimedia careers. The next section follows the intertwined semantic, cultural, and legal histories of libel from the 1550s to the early 1600s. In the process, it identifies a clear and enduring paradigm of libel: as anonymous, extralegal accusation. The third section returns to theater history, tracing the same logic to the core of efforts to regulate the stage. After surveying the relevant scholarship on dramatic censorship, it pins the theater’s proximity to libeling on the vexed question of audience interpretation. The Introduction finally locates the late Elizabethan scenes of libel in the context of the anxious years of the long 1590s (1588–1603).

Chapter 7 examines the extent to which federal, state, and local governments can restrict public protest during public health and civil unrest emergencies. The chapter describes how the current system of emergency powers affects public protest rights, including through curfews, limits on movement, and bans on public gatherings. It rejects the notion that the First Amendment and other rights can be “suspended” during declared or undeclared emergencies and argues for strict judicial review of measures that ban or severely restrict public protest during emergencies. The chapter also addresses the role of the federal government, including U.S. armed forces personnel, in policing civil unrest and prosecuting protest-related offenses. It advocates a minimal federal presence and function at public protest events and urges federal cooperation with states and localities.

Chapter 5 is the first part of our analytic narrative. We describe equilibrium selection in the immediate aftermath of the Maidan events. The first theater was Crimea. The question was whether Russian-speaking elites in peripheral communities would accept the first storyline (“Dignity”) and remain loyal to the Ukrainian state, or accept the second storyline (“coup”) and opt for sedition. Elites in Crimea coordinated rapidly on sedition. The only militias in the streets were pro-Russia (though a brave pro-Ukraine demonstration by Crimean Tatars is described). Russian soldiers arrived to secure parliament. The Party of Regions networks served a coordinating function, repurposing state institutions to legitimize the Russian presence and ensuring institutional continuity. Crimeans voted, Russia claimed self-determination, and the government in Kyiv was checkmated. Coordinated sedition was a fait accompli.

Chapter 6 is the second part of our analytic narrative. We describe coordination failure by Russian-speaking elites trying to decide whether or not they wanted to try to emulate Crimea. The chapter contrasts the orderly spectacle of irredentist annexation in Crimea with the chaotic “Russian Spring” across Eastern and Southern Ukraine. The existential question was whether the interstate border would change again. The Party of Regions had imploded, so there was no mechanism of transregional cooperation. Dozens of Russian-speaking communities each had to decide locally whether sedition or loyalty to Kyiv would prevail. Russia attempted, but failed, to use a television narrative to encourage established elites in the East to back secessionist uprisings. Sedition did not really get off the ground in most Russian-speaking communities, as pro-Ukraine militias became dominant in the streets. By early May, anti-Kyiv protests died down most everywhere – except in the Donbas.

This chapter evaluates the mechanisms of political trials in autocratic contexts. Focusing on Kenya since independence, I explore when and why judicial strategies of repression were used to punish regime insiders. My analysis specifically examines how the spectacle of a sedition trial was used to restore confidence in the autocrat when regime cohesion was under strain. Using careful process tracing and rich archival documents, I provide evidence that political justice helped restore obedience and dissuade dissent when the autocrat’s authority was contested.

Courtrooms constituted public forums for structuring the speech economy, the social identity of individuals, and the social order as a whole, according to the criteria of gentility. The amorphousness and subjectivity of “noise,” “railing,” and “abuse” made them the ideal vehicles into which to import prevailing conceptions of impolite speech and persons. Prosecutions for these offenses helped clarify distinctions between polite and vulgar, civilized and unrefined, the empire and the wilderness. Threats and menaces constituted a type of insensible speech that was located just at the boundary between language and violence. The criminal law – the most public and formal institution for policing profane speech – became directed primarily against the non-elite; the elite, meanwhile, were generally subject only to private and extralegal sanctions for swearing. For them, their prosecutions became vehicles for demonstrating their facility with legal procedure, possession of genteel qualities such as sensibility, and relative lack of legal accountability for otherwise transgressive speech.

Throughout the war and beyond, lawmakers largely abandoned their previous efforts to legislate polite speech, and instead crafted statutes designed to criminalize politically disloyal speech and reward loyal speech. General sessions courts, too, seem to have concentrated their efforts on subversive speech, while at the same time adopting a more expansive definition of impolite speakers and a more casual attitude toward impolite speech in general. Meanwhile, some evidence suggests that elite attempts to maintain a monopoly over their roles as credible purveyors of news about publicly significant events were undermined, as Americans questioned and reformulated the bonds between information and personal identity. Amid all this uncertainty about speech and status, a new ethos of respectability emerged as a set of values and a guide to behavior for those wishing to distinguish themselves from the lower orders. Indeed, cultural concerns about speech, its relationship to social order, and how best to regulate it have never totally vanished; they merely transformed and emerged in different incarnations that tend to reflect and reinforce existing structures of power and status in society.

This chapter addresses the abuse of charitable religion. It begins with a brief history of the abuse of religious charities. This draws out the entrenched legal requirements for charities to guard against administrative and purposive abuse, and highlights the resourcing and remit issues that the Charity Commission has faced since its inception. It notes the general success of Muslim or Muslim-led charities to contextualise five pressing contemporary concerns: Charity Commission effectiveness, unregulated domestic fundraising, terrorist financing, foreign funding and extremist exploitation. Taking these in order of difficulty, it acknowledges the ‘faith factor’ where relevant and notes the need for theory when addressing unresolved policy questions about potentially dangerous foreign and non-state influence over important domestic institutions. The penultimate section models the two conventional theoretical interpretations of these issues and their attendant problems. The final section offers a pluralist response and details the most sensible reforms.

Faiz’s literary pursuits are difficult to disentangle from the wider political trajectory out of which he emerged and impacted. I argue that Faiz Ahmed Faiz’s ethical self-fashioning as a political subject was deeply rooted within Perso-Arabic, Indo-Persian, and Urdu literary traditions even as he became increasingly invested in internationalist solidarity. I show that Faiz’s poetry, deeply rooted in Urdu literary and ethical traditions and composed during incarceration and exile, demonstrated his revulsion for the narrow confines of territorial nationalism and the authoritarianism of the postcolonial state.

Chapter 2 provides an account of the emergence of an inchoate ‘Writ’ jurisdiction in the late colonial period in British India. It is the limited availability and partial success of a procedural form of rule of law in moderating the authoritarianism of the colonial state, despite its larger failures, that account for its lasting resonance amongst segments of the colonised elites. In the first decade of postcolonial existence, as the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan failed to draft a constitution until 1956, The Government of India Act 1935 remained the interim framework. The role of the newly empowered superior courts will be particularly scrutinised with regard to their alleged complicity in the uprooting of constitutionalism and democracy in the first decade of the republic’s existence. However, despite their seeming subservience to the executive the courts continued to push the political elites that came to dominate the new state towards framing a republican constitution. Most notably, the dislocations in the state structure caused by the partition of British India also gave the courts the space to extend their administrative law jurisdiction through the newly-established ‘Writ jurisdiction’ over a bureaucracy that was in the process of reconstruction.

This chapter considers the addressing of persuasive arguments, in oral, handwritten and printed forms and in Scots, English and Gaelic, and identifies rhetorical devices used to represent and express extra-institutional opinions in public communications. The analysis shows how dissidents worked to influence and exploit the views of supporters and how Scotland's rulers sought to manage extra-institutional opinions through a combination of censorship and their own proactive communications. The relative smallness of the Scottish print market and the gradual spread of literacy from elite to middling levels across this period meant that oral and manuscript communications remained important alongside print, producing a distinct communications culture. Though traditional figures like Lady Scotland or Jock Upaland were used to speak for the nation and people, over time collective opinions came to be represented in more literal terms as writers advanced claims about the views of the kirk, the godly and the covenanted nation.

Like the protestation, the petition helped to make extra-institutional opinion more visible in early modern Scotland. Petitions were a traditional tool for initiating dialogue, normally in humble terms that emphasised the pleas of the petitioner and the authority of the recipient. Buoyed by religious convictions, political petitioners in Scotland defied these norms by presenting conscientious arguments reinforced with signatures and crowds. They might even petition repeatedly when answers were unsatisfactory. Though these adversarial political activities capitalised on the conventional idea that a good prince should hear the grievances of his people, successive monarchs sought to constrain what they saw as seditious and tumultuous behaviour. This chapter traces episodes of assertive petitioning in Scotland, showing how petitioning stimulated and expressed opinions at large, especially under James VI and Charles I, and how the crown responded to these challenges with the suppression of unwelcome petitioning from the Restoration to the Revolution.