Final answer:
The concept of joining a conspiracy already in progress involves legal responsibility for the past and future actions of the conspiracy. Treason is narrowly defined in the U.S. Constitution and requires two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in court, setting a high evidentiary standard for conviction.
Step-by-step explanation:
Understanding Treason and Joining a Conspiracy in Progress
The legal concept related to "joining a conspiracy already in progress" can be associated with the broader aspects of criminal law, and in extreme cases, with the constitutional definition of treason. In U.S. constitutional law, Section 3 provides a very specific and narrow definition of treason against the United States as either "levying War against them, or adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort". No person shall be convicted of treason without the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or upon confession in open court.
In relation to conspiracy, if an individual joins a conspiracy already in progress, they become responsible for the actions and agreements made prior to their joining as long as the conspiracy is ongoing and they are aware of its objectives. This legal principle ensures that new members contributing to the conspiracy's objectives can be legally implicated and held accountable for the conspiracy's past and future actions.
Regarding free speech considerations and subversive speech, the Supreme Court has delineated that such speech cannot be limited unless it can be shown to have directly promoted and led to a conspiracy or an actual effort to overthrow the government; mere abstract talk of overthrowing the government is not enough. This distinction upholds the First Amendment's protections of free speech while recognizing a threshold for when speech can be considered part of a criminal conspiracy.
Joining a conspiracy already in progress does not necessarily equate to the strict and narrowly defined crime of treason unless the conspiracy involves overt acts that qualify as treasonous under Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Thus, while similar in that both involve collaboration against the government, they are legally distinct situations with different thresholds of evidence and levels of severity.