What is Freedom Of Speech ?

[LeftEyeNine]

I'm probably missing the biggest point on earth but that's why I want views on this. What does "Freedom Of Speech" stand for ? I mean, what practical uses has it contributed towards a more modern society ? Where does it start and end (if it does) ? And, for example, individuals publicly express their ideas of provocation and/or hatred towards the identity of your country/nation, how far is it acceptable? Is it still freedom of speech and subject to being "injudgeable by authorities" ? Is freedom of speech universal or should be redefined among distinct cultures ?

What do you think ?

[Duke Malcolm]

It should have no limits other than slander and personal offence (that is, something directed at someone with intent to offed). It is quite an old tradition in the House of Commons, but recently and internationally, it allows to people's views coming across. In those countries without it, we know little of what their people want, what their attitudes are to their government.

However, people should still be polite, and practise the rules of polite conversation (i.e. no politics, religion, children, talking of one's own virtues or another's vices) when meeting someone new, or over dinner, or somesuch occasion.

[Ja'chyra]

I think it's an urban myth

[LeftEyeNine]

I think it's an urban myth

If not sarcastic, I'm close to the idea of yours. But why is it so then? What are your reasons behind this ?

[Redleg]

Freedom of Speech is a concept which allows an individual to speak his mind without fear of prosecution from the government. Freedom of Speech does not remove the responsibility from the individual to insure that his speech is factual. One can not always be predict how people will take their speech - but the government has upheld a few standards that seem reasonable on the surface.

States have upheld that Freedom of Speech does not entitle one to speak in such a manner that advocates harm to another person or group. States also have in their self-interest (the states interest) limited speech that advocates the violent overthrow of the government authority.

If one has Freedom to Speak their mind - they must also accept the responsiblity that goes with it. This is the dilemia of free speech, most want the freedom but not the responsibility that goes with it.

[Ja'chyra]

If not sarcastic, I'm close to the idea of yours. But why is it so then? What are your reasons behind this ?

True freedom of speech would entitle anyone to say whatever they liked, whether it was offensive to others or not, and we all know that this is prohibited by law (race relations, discrimination acts).

So we have partial freedom, and the amount decreases with every ridiculous law brought in.

[LeftEyeNine]

Well you seem disturbed with the laws brought in. If so, care to talk about the possibility of the true Freedom Of Speech happening ?

[yesdachi]

True freedom of speech would entitle anyone to say whatever they liked, whether it was offensive to others or not, and we all know that this is prohibited by law (race relations, discrimination acts).

So we have partial freedom, and the amount decreases with every ridiculous law brought in.
I would be ok with true freedom of speech if there were also a freedom of prosecution for retaliation to ones free speech. Slander someone and they beat you’re a$$ without punishment. Hummmm might work… but probably not. There really does need to be limitations, but some of the new/proposed laws are absurd and completely go against the very nature of the concept of free speech.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Being able to say "Hey **** you Bush!" at a peace rally...:idea2:

[Kagemusha]

Freedom of Speech is a concept which allows an individual to speak his mind without fear of prosecution from the government. Freedom of Speech does not remove the responsibility from the individual to insure that his speech is factual. One can not always be predict how people will take their speech - but the government has upheld a few standards that seem reasonable on the surface.

States have upheld that Freedom of Speech does not entitle one to speak in such a manner that advocates harm to another person or group. States also have in their self-interest (the states interest) limited speech that advocates the violent overthrow of the government authority.

If one has Freedom to Speak their mind - they must also accept the responsiblity that goes with it. This is the dilemia of free speech, most want the freedom but not the responsibility that goes with it.

Redleg hit the nail in the head.Nuff said.:bow:

[Dutch_guy]

Being able to say "Hey **** you Bush!" at a peace rally...:idea2:

....without getting thrown into jail and getting sentenced 20 years imprisonment for treason.

:balloon2:

[Alexanderofmacedon]

....without getting thrown into jail and getting sentenced 20 years imprisonment for treason.

:balloon2:

Yeah, that was implied, but thank you...

[Rodion Romanovich]

Freedom of speech means that a rebel that dislikes a government can state why. No freedom of speech means that if you say why you dislike a government, the government puts you in jail or kills you, or punishes you in some other way and uses camps for dissenters etc, and then fifty years or so later a mob realizes that that government doesn't allow you to state your opinion or have your rights so the only way of getting a better life is to start a killing spree of all people that are part of or related to the government in one way or another. Basically, if you have freedom of speech people can express any political opinion, except hate speech, whose purpose is to spread hate and cause violent treatment of some group where not all who are part of that group are guilty of some crime. For instance hate speech towards the group "sentenced criminals" isn't considered illegal, but towards pretty much any other grouping it is. As for expressing social level opinions about others, it's not necessarily a right that must be protected, on the other hand, it can't really be forbidden either.

[Reenk Roink]

Freedom of speech means different things to different peoples.

For example, the founding fathers (American) saw no contradiction between erecting free speech and blasphemy laws. Free speech covered one area, while blasphemy covered another...

[BHCWarman88]

I think we only got Partial Freedom of Speech,because you say something wrong,rather you mean it or not,you can get busted,so,why call it Freedom of Speech??

[yesdachi]

so,why call it Freedom of Speech??
Marketing. ~D

[Redleg]

I think we only got Partial Freedom of Speech,because you say something wrong,rather you mean it or not,you can get busted,so,why call it Freedom of Speech??

Evaluate what people get "busted" for in their speech and how they get "busted" for their speech.

An individual still must accept responsiblity for their speech. Freedom of Speech does not remove you from that responsibility. Now in the United States notice how many peaceful protestors are arrested for their speech - one that comes to mind is Cindy S. and her protesting in front of the Crawford Ranch. Was she arrested for exercising her Freedom of Speech to question the President's actions?

Now take that same individual who elected to wear a political statement on a shirt into the State of the Union Speech where the rules are well known? Did she exercise her Freedom of Speech, regardless of the stated rule for that particlur sesson of Congress, or did she violate the rules of the Senate which allows for actions to be taken? Does her desire to exercise her Freedom of Speech mean that the Congress can not enforce their house rules when they are in session?

Again with Freedom comes Responsiblity. Without Responsibility there is no Freedom.

[Papewaio]

I think the correct term would be Liberty of Speech.

And no matter what you are allowed to do there are consequences for your actions. Adults take responsibility for their actions, Freedom of Speech to me is the ability to talk factually about things without censure. If I am lying about things then I don't see why I should be allowed to pollute the aural landscape. It would be nice to have politicians who are honest when talking...

[Ice]

Being able to say "Hey **** you Bush!" at a peace rally...:idea2:

Why not have some class and say something more Witty about Bush, Instead of the mindless "I hate you cuz you hate p00r people!"

There really is no reason to use public profanity.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Why not have some class and say something more Witty about Bush, Instead of the mindless "I hate you cuz you hate p00r people!"

There really is no reason to use public profanity.

I'm not saying I would do that. Being able to do that is my point...

...silly

[Redleg]

I'm not saying I would do that. Being able to do that is my point...

...silly

Can you point out the last time someone was arrested for saying something like that?

[Pindar]

I'm probably missing the biggest point on earth but that's why I want views on this. What does "Freedom Of Speech" stand for ? I mean, what practical uses has it contributed towards a more modern society ? Where does it start and end (if it does) ? And, for example, individuals publicly express their ideas of provocation and/or hatred towards the identity of your country/nation, how far is it acceptable? Is it still freedom of speech and subject to being "injudgeable by authorities" ? Is freedom of speech universal or should be redefined among distinct cultures ?

What do you think ?

Hello,

-Freedom of Speech is fundamentally a political act.
-The practical use is to serve as a demonstrative limit on the power of the government.
-It starts and ends with the legislative process meaning: the citizenry determine the boundaries and those boundaries remain amenable to the same. This applies from the passage of constitutional provisions to local jurisdiction.
-Provocative speech, dispisal of the government and/or national self loathing is traditionally acceptable up to actually advocacy of armed overthrow of the state insofar as the state is a representative organ.

-Proponents of democracy typically see the base notion of free speech as a universal insofar as a person is not entirely identified by his or her citizenry and is thereby naturally empowered irrespective of the state. Even so, the particular parameters of expression may be defined by the legislative process noted above.

[Justiciar]

Can you point out the last time someone was arrested for saying something like that?
I can't remember a time when someone was arrested, but I do remember a rather amusing inccident during Bush's inauguration speech. Some guy stood up and started shouting while Georgie was nattering on about America's god given right to Freedom of Speech, or something of a similar nature. The camera just stayed on the protester long enough to see him dragged away. :laugh4: It's not really an example, and you can understand the need to kick such a person out, but it was still damn funny.

[Strike For The South]

Freedom of Speech is being able to say what you want when you want. If others dont agree with you it shouldnt matter becuase other peoples opinons arent as important

[Ice]

If others dont agree with you it shouldnt matter becuase other peoples opinons arent as important

I hope that's sarcasam because you do know we live in a Democratic Republic, right?

[Strike For The South]

I meant you should say your opinion no matter what and shouldnt be bound by popularity or free hot dogs. In todays world people are to afriad to say what they really feel. Some people call this restraint "tact" I call this "silly"

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Can you point out the last time someone was arrested for saying something like that?

Who said anyone got arrested? I said that's what free speech is. If America is home to free speech, then hopefully no one got arrested!

[Redleg]

Who said anyone got arrested? I said that's what free speech is. If America is home to free speech, then hopefully no one got arrested!

Again ask yourself the question....The answer is self-evident once one looks for the answer.....

[Major Robert Dump]

You could be arrested for using the F-word in public if it happened in a setting where it could be deemed public indecency, or disturbing the peace. Who else is present is just as important as where you are. Yelling it at a commencement ceremony will put you at odds with the university rules, but yelling it from your dorm window as the president walks to his car likley wouldn't. Yelling it in front of children could get you arrested, yelling it in front of a group of adults likely wouldn't.



I'm really a big fan of unadultered freedom of speech(with libel and slander exceptions), but am torn on the issue when it comes to indecency laws because of scumbags who blare vulgar music out of cars around kids, old ladys and teenage girls.

[BHCWarman88]

Evaluate what people get "busted" for in their speech and how they get "busted" for their speech.

An individual still must accept responsiblity for their speech. Freedom of Speech does not remove you from that responsibility. Now in the United States notice how many peaceful protestors are arrested for their speech - one that comes to mind is Cindy S. and her protesting in front of the Crawford Ranch. Was she arrested for exercising her Freedom of Speech to question the President's actions?

Now take that same individual who elected to wear a political statement on a shirt into the State of the Union Speech where the rules are well known? Did she exercise her Freedom of Speech, regardless of the stated rule for that particlur sesson of Congress, or did she violate the rules of the Senate which allows for actions to be taken? Does her desire to exercise her Freedom of Speech mean that the Congress can not enforce their house rules when they are in session?

Again with Freedom comes Responsiblity. Without Responsibility there is no Freedom.


People Should Say whatever they want to say,and that it. I don't like Cindy S,think she needs to just admit her son died for our countey and that's it.. But she wants to Question Bush's Actions,she go Right Ahead,rather I like it or not..

[Ice]

I meant you should say your opinion no matter what and shouldnt be bound by popularity or free hot dogs. In todays world people are to afriad to say what they really feel. Some people call this restraint "tact" I call this "silly"

:2thumbsup: I couldn't agree more.

[Redleg]

People Should Say whatever they want to say,and that it. I don't like Cindy S,think she needs to just admit her son died for our countey and that's it.. But she wants to Question Bush's Actions,she go Right Ahead,rather I like it or not..


So do you believe it is okay to shout fire in a club that is crowded so that you can enter?

So do you believe it is okay to call individuals of who happen to have pigment color of brown or black degrading names?

So do you believe it is okay to call for the death of anyone who happens to be a jew?

So do you believe that it is okay to state that Nancy Drew (insert any name instead) is a homosexual when there is no proof that she is?


With Freedom comes responsiblity - without responsiblity there is no freedom.

[JimBob]

The ability to speak your mind and say what you wish so long as it does no harm to anyone else. You can't slander, and you can't shout fire in a crowded theater.

[Soulforged]

If one has Freedom to Speak their mind - they must also accept the responsiblity that goes with it. This is the dilemia of free speech, most want the freedom but not the responsibility that goes with it.
Evaluating the general situation in your country at the time, would you reasonabily state that there's an ample freedom of speech? I'm just curious about things I've heard about the U.S. in these last months.

I've nothing to add to the topic, you've said it just fine, except for the second part of the second parragraph of your first post, wich I disagree with. :hide:

[Redleg]

Evaluating the general situation in your country at the time, would you reasonabily state that there's an ample freedom of speech? I'm just curious about things I've heard about the U.S. in these last months.


The concept of Freedom of Speech in the United States is sound. People are not often arrested by the Government for their speech - only those who advocate violence normally are. The instance where the woman was arrested for her comments toward the Chinese President seem primarily to be an effort to remove her to prevent futher embrassement to both the Chinese President and the current adminstration.



I've nothing to add to the topic, you've said it just fine, except for the second part of the second parragraph of your first post, wich I disagree with. :hide:
So do you believe it is okay to shout fire in a club that is crowded so that you can enter?

So do you believe it is okay to call individuals of who happen to have pigment color of brown or black degrading names?

So do you believe it is okay to call for the death of anyone who happens to be a jew?

So do you believe that it is okay to state that Nancy Drew (insert any name instead) is a homosexual when there is no proof that she is?


So which one of those do you agree with and which ones don't you agree with.



With Freedom comes responsiblity - without responsiblity there is no freedom.

[Soulforged]

The concept of Freedom of Speech in the United States is sound. People are not often arrested by the Government for their speech - only those who advocate violence normally are. The instance where the woman was arrested for her comments toward the Chinese President seem primarily to be an effort to remove her to prevent futher embrassement to both the Chinese President and the current adminstration.Perhaps I'm buying to much american series lately. But weren't there some arrests based on people speaking their mind against Bush? Or some strange concept that I only heard about american policy called "Zone of Free Speech"?

So do you believe it is okay to shout fire in a club that is crowded so that you can enter?If the people react, no it's not okay.

So do you believe it is okay to call individuals of who happen to have pigment color of brown or black degrading names?It's not okay. But why should it be illegal? I only think it should be illegal when said in the media, and only if the subjects that felt affected initiate a motion against the subject who provoqued them.

So do you believe it is okay to call for the death of anyone who happens to be a jew?The same as above.

So do you believe that it is okay to state that Nancy Drew (insert any name instead) is a homosexual when there is no proof that she is?The same as above.

So which one of those do you agree with and which ones don't you agree with.I think I was pretty clear, second part of the second paragraph: "States also have in their self-interest (the states interest) limited speech that advocates the violent overthrow of the government authority." And for the long discussion that we had about this it's amazing that you have missed the point.

[Rodion Romanovich]

@Redleg: What you say is true - with freedom of speech comes responsibility. But if someone does any of these things:

- shout fire in a club that is crowded so that you can enter?
- call individuals of who happen to have pigment color of brown or black degrading names?
- call for the death of anyone who happens to be a jew?
- state that Nancy Drew (insert any name instead) is a homosexual when there is no proof that she is?

...should they be arrested and sentenced as criminals for it? Because then you're not talking about free speech with responsibility, but free speech restricted by laws. While I agree none of those things should be said, and perhaps not even allowed to be said (if it's possible to make a proper law against it that doesn't ruin the other free speech abilities), it's necessary to find an exact phrasing of what such statements have in common and makes them punishable, and what differs them from other statements, if you are to have laws - and punishments - for them. So the questions I'd like to ask you are the following:
1. do you think it should be illegal to say any of those things?
2. if yes, how should such a law be phrased, i.e. how can you in an exact way differ between an illegal and a legal statement. I personally find it difficult to find an exact enough phrasing that excludes all forms of responsible statements from being considered criminal and excludes all irresponsible statements from being considered legal (but that doesn't mean I'm against finding such a phrasing, on the contrary I'd be delighted to find one).
3. do you think any forms of verbal protest against a government should be illegal, and if so, how would you define an illegal form of protest against a government?
4. if it isn't allowed by the free speech principle to speak of violence against a government, while at the same time the government withdraws several democratic rights and increase things such as surveillance, it's a very dangerous thing to have rooted into the system that protesting merely in words (note: no action or real violence, only speaking of violence) against the government should be illegal. It's necessary for people to be able to speak warmly about violence against the government if the democratic system is falling apart. The American constitution even calls it a duty rather than a right to carry guns and if necessary use those overthrow any government that would be undemocratic.

[Redleg]

Perhaps I'm buying to much american series lately. But weren't there some arrests based on people speaking their mind against Bush? Or some strange concept that I only heard about american policy called "Zone of Free Speech"?
If the people react, no it's not okay.
It's not okay. But why should it be illegal? I only think it should be illegal when said in the media, and only if the subjects that felt affected initiate a motion against the subject who provoqued them.
The same as above.
The same as above.
I think I was pretty clear, second part of the second paragraph: "States also have in their self-interest (the states interest) limited speech that advocates the violent overthrow of the government authority." And for the long discussion that we had about this it's amazing that you have missed the point.



The concept of anarchy is a non-proven political idealogue that faces many problems.

You have demonstrated often in our discussions about Freedom of Speech. If your unwilling to accept responsiblity for your speech - even anarchy can not function without people accepting responsiblity for the actions.

[Redleg]

@Redleg: What you say is true - with freedom of speech comes responsibility. But if someone does any of these things:

- shout fire in a club that is crowded so that you can enter?
- call individuals of who happen to have pigment color of brown or black degrading names?
- call for the death of anyone who happens to be a jew?
- state that Nancy Drew (insert any name instead) is a homosexual when there is no proof that she is?

...should they be arrested and sentenced as criminals for it?

Speech that causes the death of others is a criminal act. Shouting fire in a crowded theather or club is a fine examble of that. Most nations and laws happen to agree with that point.

Calling for the desruction of another human being based soley upon their race or religion falls within that same concept.

Slander is a known civil crime that often resorts in torts being awarded against the person who uttered the slander.



Because then you're not talking about free speech with responsibility, but free speech restricted by laws.


Not at all - if you act in a irresponsible matter and it causes the death of another you can be charged with several crimes. The state must prove that your actions caused the events - which is not all that hard in many cases.



While I agree none of those things should be said, and perhaps not even allowed to be said (if it's possible to make a proper law against it that doesn't ruin the other free speech abilities), it's necessary to find an exact phrasing of what such statements have in common and makes them punishable, and what differs them from other statements, if you are to have laws - and punishments - for them. So the questions I'd like to ask you are the following:

Laws alreadly exist for many of the above mentioned questions - that is why I used them. Those laws also have very specific definitions that happen to fit within the scope of the question.



1. do you think it should be illegal to say any of those things?

Yes - irresponsible behavior often has a consequence both civil and criminal. If you decide to shout fire in a crowded bar - when there is no fire - then you get to suffer the consequences of your irresponsible action.



2. if yes, how should such a law be phrased, i.e. how can you in an exact way differ between an illegal and a legal statement. I personally find it difficult to find an exact enough phrasing that excludes all forms of responsible statements from being considered criminal and excludes all irresponsible statements from being considered legal (but that doesn't mean I'm against finding such a phrasing, on the contrary I'd be delighted to find one).

You don't go after the responsible use of speech - the state makes laws against irresponsible use of speech - the shouting of fire is a good case in point, so is hate speech directed at advocating violence against another.



3. do you think any forms of verbal protest against a government should be illegal, and if so, how would you define an illegal form of protest against a government?

Your suffering under the same problem that Soulforged is. Protests against the government falls under Freedom of Speech. Advocating the overthrow of the government through violence - sedition, is not. For instance in the body of the Constitution it expressly states that Congress shall call forth the militia in instances of sedition. Sedition is not protected speech in the United States. Protesting against the governments actions is protected speech.



4. if it isn't allowed by the free speech principle to speak of violence against a government, while at the same time the government withdraws several democratic rights and increase things such as surveillance, it's a very dangerous thing to have rooted into the system that protesting merely in words (note: no action or real violence, only speaking of violence) against the government should be illegal. It's necessary for people to be able to speak warmly about violence against the government if the democratic system is falling apart. The American constitution even calls it a duty rather than a right to carry guns and if necessary use those overthrow any government that would be undemocratic.

Correct - the wording is done to force a constitutional crisis at Congress when the people begin to advocate with force the destruction of the government. The best case in point about Free Speech and sedition is the American Civil War.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Not at all - if you act in a irresponsible matter and it causes the death of another you can be charged with several crimes. The state must prove that your actions caused the events - which is not all that hard in many cases.

I believe you misunderstood my point in that phrasing. I meant that if you restrict freedom of speech by law rather than the individual's responsibility, it isn't full freedom of speech, but (in the ideal case) almost full freedom of speech. It is a phrasing which shows that there's a difference between the two concepts. Real and full freedom of speech doesn't work we both agree to, but we should know that what we have when we pass laws against some kind of talking, we have what is called restricted freedom of speech. Responsibly restricted, but restricted not by the individual but by the law.

Your examples below are good, but I'm afraid I've been able to point out a few loopholes in your phrasings, which still make them unsatisfactory. Let's see if we can correct those loopholes by making the definitions clearer, if I point out the loophole and we try to find out how to close it:



Yes - irresponsible behavior often has a consequence both civil and criminal. If you decide to shout fire in a crowded bar - when there is no fire - then you get to suffer the consequences of your irresponsible action.

Irresponsible behavior is a bit vague. Of course, one could say that shouting fire in a crowded bar is a practical joke. A joke you may pull on your friends. Assume you do, and then some others hear you...



hate speech directed at advocating violence against another


This phrasing is close to lacking loopholes, but the way it's phrased now it would make it illegal to speak in favor of death penalty, or even speaking in favor of prison, which is mental violence. You need to add an exception stating that "except in the case of sentenced criminals", or many in this forum would be criminals (mind you many advocate violence against not yet sentenced people - even people who are later released and shown to be innocent, and another person later got correctly arrested for the crime). But then it becomes legal to advocate violence at an innocently sentenced, or a man who was guilty, but whose crime was mearly shoplifting for 50 pence, so you might need an exception for the exception. So where is the line drawn?



Advocating the overthrow of the government through violence - sedition, is not.


But assume the government removes the right to vote, and the Congress is too scared to advocate the destruction of the government. What should the people do? And if a leader starts wiretapping everyone, and moves innocent people, or people who merely spoke negatively of the regime, to camps where they were kept without a trial. Somewhere there is a line where democracy is lost, and when advocating violence is the only way of expressing your dislike for the anti-democratic movements. If you advocate violence (but do not use it) against a government that removes one democratic right after another, that communicating of anger to them is the only way to make them understand that they need to stop. But you are harmless to the government at that point. Usually when democracy is removed, the state can do whatever it wants, and it takes fifty years or so to assemble are real rebellion to overthrow the government. If you advocate violence the government can leave you alone and you'll still not be able to overthrow it immediately, rather if they sentence you for that speech, you'll be more likely to successfully overthrow them earlier. Also if it would be a democratic and legal government, it would suffer more from arresting and persecuting people who spoke negatively of it, than their advocating violence could ever do.

Let's take an example - assuming you're in the Weimar Republic, and Hitler just got elected. Now during the trip from 1933 to 1945, at which point should it have become legal for a German citizen to advocate the destruction of the nazi government by violence?

[Soulforged]

The concept of anarchy is a non-proven political idealogue that faces many problems.We're not arguing about anarchy, and I never mentioned it. However you didn't answered my first question.

You have demonstrated often in our discussions about Freedom of Speech. If your unwilling to accept responsiblity for your speech - even anarchy can not function without people accepting responsiblity for the actions.I still cannot understand how do you equate what I'm saying with not accepting responsability... I accept my responsability for advocating the overthrowing of my government... I think you mean consequences, in that case I don't accept them, simple, I can difer on the view that your courts or mine have on the matter, and hell I'll disagree on this matter everytime. But let's take a look at your last post to draw some lines for my ideas:

Speech that causes the death of others is a criminal act. Shouting fire in a crowded theather or club is a fine examble of that. Most nations and laws happen to agree with that point.There's no speech that causes death. The speech in itself is not a criminal act, the only way in wich it becomes criminal is when there's some result at the end of the events, a disvalued result, like injured people. And that's the principal problem that I've with the interpretation that you defend of texts like the 1st Amendment, I'll say it again, you give to much powers to words, you give them magical properties, without the prejudice of other people doing the same of course.

[Reenk Roink]

Redleg is correct. At least initially, as our founding fathers interpreted it, freedom of speech was to guarantee the right to scrutinize and if need be, protest the government (we were very wary of a powerful government back then). It was not extended so that people could say whatever they wanted, and slander, blasphemy, and indecency were all still crimes.

[Redleg]

I'll say it again, you give to much powers to words, you give them magical properties, without the prejudice of other people doing the same of course.

No magical properties at all. If you shout fire in a crowded Restraunt, Club, theather - it will cause serious harm or death to someone. That is a fact - proven by actual events.

There are other exambles - it seems that your attempting to debunk the postion by ridicule not by fact. Thats to bad - when you get stuck in an untenable idealogue postion and use such terms it demonstrates in itself the weakness of your argument.

I tell you what - come to the United States and walk up to a black man in the inner city and call him a certain term.. You will see a demonstration of the power of a word placed upon yourself.

[Soulforged]

Redleg is correct. At least initially, as our founding fathers interpreted it, freedom of speech was to guarantee the right to scrutinize and if need be, protest the government (we were very wary of a powerful government back then). It was not extended so that people could say whatever they wanted, and slander, blasphemy, and indecency were all still crimes.
Exactly, that's one interpretation. That's called, in theory, historic interpretation.

No magical properties at all. If you shout fire in a crowded Restraunt, Club, theather - it will cause serious harm or death to someone. That is a fact - proven by actual events.The magical properties are in the fact that you seem to see some kind of causal connection between the speech and the result, emptying the affected subjects of will.

There are other exambles - it seems that your attempting to debunk the postion by ridicule not by fact. Thats to bad - when you get stuck in an untenable idealogue postion and use such terms it demonstrates in itself the weakness of your argument.Caracterizing positions of idealogue is what's stucking the conversetion, apparently you have a certain taste for attaching arbitrary labels to certain statements made against your possition. And still you don't recognize the interpretation that I proposed as something that reasonabily can be infered. You can throw as much examples as you want, you're ignoring the fact that there's only a very tiny connection between an speech and any given effect as far as human relatioships go (not sure what other effect a voice or a letter can cause). In all the examples that you've provided, except pehaps for one or two occasions in wich the consequences might surpass the line of the reasonable (like punishing someone for denying the holocaust) and in the case of sedition, we're talking about penal cases in wich the persecution begins by a private instance. That's, if there's no result, i.e. person affected, there's no case whatsoever. In the case of sedition this changes, you speak some words and suddenly it's a crime by itself, I don't know why, perhaps you can explain this to me, since I've never understood this quite enough.

I tell you what - come to the United States and walk up to a black man in the inner city and call him a certain term.. You will see a demonstration of the power of a word placed upon yourself.I don't need to go to the US for that. And now that you gave me the situation, then ask yourself this: In what manner will that black man respond if I tell him "monkey", for example? Will it be a reaction as in cause-effect, or will it be the result of human interpretation and the conventional use of words working in his brain. Both have different consequences.

[Redleg]

Exactly, that's one interpretation. That's called, in theory, historic interpretation.

Your getting close



The magical properties are in the fact that you seem to see some kind of causal connection between the speech and the result, emptying the affected subjects of will.

No causal connection - a direct causation happens. individual yells fire - panic strikes the crowd - someone ends up hurt or dead. The direct result of the yelling of fire caused the events to happen.



Caracterizing positions of idealogue is what's stucking the conversetion, apparently you have a certain taste for attaching arbitrary labels to certain statements made against your possition.

What do you think the term magic is - don't go attempting to play the maytr when you yourself are more guilty of this.



And still you don't recognize the interpretation that I proposed as something that reasonabily can be infered.

Maybe its because its not something that is reasonabily inferred.



You can throw as much examples as you want, you're ignoring the fact that there's only a very tiny connection between an speech and any given effect as far as human relatioships go (not sure what other effect a voice or a letter can cause).

Death resulting from the irresponsible shouting of fire in a crowded place is not a minor or tiny connection between speech and a given event.



In all the examples that you've provided, except pehaps for one or two occasions in wich the consequences might surpass the line of the reasonable (like punishing someone for denying the holocaust) and in the case of sedition, we're talking about penal cases in wich the persecution begins by a private instance.

Not at all - I clearly have stated that there are both civil and criminal applications.



That's, if there's no result, i.e. person affected, there's no case whatsoever.


Your getting warm.



In the case of sedition this changes, you speak some words and suddenly it's a crime by itself, I don't know why, perhaps you can explain this to me, since I've never understood this quite enough.

Then your attempting to debunk my statements from lack of knowledge - sedition is covered in the United States Constitution as a specific event that the government through Congress has to act on.



I don't need to go to the US for that. And now that you gave me the situation, then ask yourself this: In what manner will that black man respond if I tell him "monkey", for example? Will it be a reaction as in cause-effect, or will it be the result of human interpretation and the conventional use of words working in his brain. Both have different consequences.

It will have the same effect - hate speech is in the preception of the reciever not your intent. The power of the spoken word still exists regardless of your attempt to equate it to "magic."

If your unwilling to accept the responsibility that goes with Freedom of Speech - you are not ready to exercise that Freedom.

[Soulforged]

No causal connection - a direct causation happens. individual yells fire - panic strikes the crowd - someone ends up hurt or dead. The direct result of the yelling of fire caused the events to happen.Contradiction.

Maybe its because its not something that is reasonabily inferred.I think I can reasonabely infer advocation of sedition as a derivate of the liberalists principles.

Death resulting from the irresponsible shouting of fire in a crowded place is not a minor or tiny connection between speech and a given event.Is it just me or did you just found a connection between a cause and an effect just because the effect happens to be "tragic"?

Not at all - I clearly have stated that there are both civil and criminal applications.Okay, more to my point. All civil cases are private.

Your getting warm.
Then your attempting to debunk my statements from lack of knowledge - sedition is covered in the United States Constitution as a specific event that the government through Congress has to act on.
Just for fun then, can you present me with an hipotetical advocation of sedition right now, one that will fall into the category persecuted by the government. What the Constitution covers, and you've presented consistently is that sedition will be represed by the state.

It will have the same effect - hate speech is in the preception of the reciever not your intent. The power of the spoken word still exists regardless of your attempt to equate it to "magic."Doesn't answer my question.

If your unwilling to accept the responsibility that goes with Freedom of Speech - you are not ready to exercise that Freedom.I see that we're stuck on this, as if I denied this to be true. The concept of responsability that you uphold is the one of knowing the legal consequences of such speech and acting in accordance. However that kind of responsability only comes with law... I'm talking about something that goes beyond the law in general, wether I can interprete what I want from your Constitution or not it's irrelevant, I'm talking in general, from morals or ethics (or even law principles or theories if you want, though they constructed to fill the blank spaces on the law), as you like to call it.

[Redleg]

Contradiction.

A direct causation is not a causal relationship.



I think I can reasonabely infer advocation of sedition as a derivate of the liberalists principles.

Sedition is an act against the established government. Liberalists and sedition does not necessarily go hand and hand. One can be a liberal without advocating the violent overthrow of the established authority.



Is it just me or did you just found a connection between a cause and an effect just because the effect happens to be "tragic"?

Must be you - the cause is the speech - using the word Fire when there is no fire.



Okay, more to my point. All civil cases are private.


Civil cases more to point is between individuals who have a disagreement. Slander is a civil case, based upon a public utterance.



Just for fun then, can you present me with an hipotetical advocation of sedition right now, one that will fall into the category persecuted by the government.

The American Civil War. I don't even have to use a hypothecial situation. There is no sedition speech currently that I know of in the United States that is prosecutable by the United States Government. Sedition speech requires the advocation of force to remove the established authority.


What the Constitution covers, and you've presented consistently is that sedition will be represed by the state.

Of course because Sedition is not considered covered under the 1st Ammendment which is often refered to as Freedom of Speech.



Doesn't answer my question.

Then you were not listening.



I see that we're stuck on this, as if I denied this to be true. The concept of responsability that you uphold is the one of knowing the legal consequences of such speech and acting in accordance. However that kind of responsability only comes with law... I'm talking about something that goes beyond the law in general, wether I can interprete what I want from your Constitution or not it's irrelevant, I'm talking in general, from morals or ethics (or even law principles or theories if you want, though they constructed to fill the blank spaces on the law), as you like to call it.


Incorrect - I am speaking of a concept that goes way beyond the law but into how an individual acts. With Freedom comes responsibility is a concept that means you have a responsiblity to your fellow man to exercise your Freedoms in a reasonable manner.

Sedition speech and its prosecution is a matter of law. Behaviors between people is being responsible in your actions toward your fellow man.

[Xiahou]

Freedom of speech? I'll tell you one thing it's not... It's not passing a law that makes it illegal for citizens to publicly criticize elected officials.

How ironic that Sen. John McCain was heckled during a recent commencement speech. He has worked so hard to suppress others' right to protest and have their voices heard.

McCain was booed and heckled as he delivered a commencement speech at The New School in New York last Friday. The main gripe seemed to be the senator's support for the war in Iraq, which has given the people of Iraq the right to protest and speak freely.

As this was going on, a federal court was telling the Christian Civic League in Maine it can't run a radio ad next month when the Senate is set to take up the Marriage Protection Amendment. Reason: The ad tangentially criticizes Sen. Olympia Snowe, who faces a primary June 13.

The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which was supposed to end the alleged corrupting influence of money in politics, makes it a criminal act for any ad to even mention a politician 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election.

The Maine ad that tries to corrupt the political process mentions that Snowe, a co-author of McCain-Feingold, "unfortunately . . . voted against the Marriage Protection Amendment two years ago." The "big money" behind it amounts to $3,992, provided by an anonymous donor who agreed to cover the radio buy.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., ruled that the ad "might have the effect of encouraging a new candidate to oppose Sen. Snowe, reducing the number of votes cast for her in the primary, weakening her support in the general election, or otherwise undermining her efforts to gather support, including by raising funds for her re-election."

Well, duh. Meanwhile, Maine newspapers, radio and TV stations, are free to influence the election, spending their corporate dollars on editorials or news coverage that is often slanted one way or the other. But a group of private citizens banding together in common cause cannot, for they'd be committing the crime of attempting to participate in the political process. link (http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&issue=20060523)

I hope all American voters remember what McCain and Feingold have done to our freedom of speech when we choose our next president. :no:

[Redleg]

Freedom of speech? I'll tell you one thing it's not... It's not passing a law that makes it illegal for citizens to publicly criticize elected officials.

I hope all American voters remember what McCain and Feingold have done to our freedom of speech when we choose our next president. :no:

I don't think the act will be upheld if it is ever challenged. On its face it seems unconstitutional and should generate sometime in the near future a constitutional crisis.

However most Judges do not want their decisions questioned either - so they will most likely indeed rule in favor of such a restriction of speech in the political process.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Sedition is an act against the established government. Liberalists and sedition does not necessarily go hand and hand. One can be a liberal without advocating the violent overthrow of the established authority.


Did you see my post above? If not, please read it. If you don't want to reply to it, I'll at least ask you this question again - do you really think it should have been illegal for German citizens of the Weimar Republic to after Hitler was elected speak in favor of overthrowing the nazi government?!! :dizzy2: At which point does it become legal to state your opinion that a governmenht should be overthrown in your opinion? Finally, do you really know of any threat to society that could be caused by people being allowed to state their opinion that a government should be overthrown? You'd better have some really good reasons for not allowing people to speak in favor or overthrowing a regime, reasons that weigh heavier than 6 million murdered Jews, Gypsies, Handicapped, and others, as well as 50 million soldiers and civilians of various countries. Your opinion of making it forbidden to speak in favor of overthrowing a government sounds very much like the "King by the grace of God" ideals of the 17th century.

[Redleg]

Did you see my post above? If not, please read it. If you don't want to reply to it, I'll at least ask you this question again - do you really think it should have been illegal for German citizens of the Weimar Republic to after Hitler was elected speak in favor of overthrowing the nazi government?!! :dizzy2:

Patience - Sometimes I do sleep. You gave a good reply and I was giving my response some thought.

Now to this post - I will respond to the first post after we address this serious of questions.

Your attempting something here that is more of a moral question versus what would be legal question (IMO). Would it have been illegal for the German citizens to attempt to overthrow the Nazi government through violence? Is that what you are asking?

If so the answer is yes it would be illegal because that falls under the definition of sedition, the state has an obligation to preserve itself. It would of been illegal under that concept of National Law.

Application of the concept of Freedom of Speech makes it perfectly acceptable and protected by the government for the people to protest the actions of the government through peaceful protest. But advocation of violence is not speech that the government has to allow to perserve a free society.

Now if your asking would it have been moral thing to do - hindsight is always 20/20. So you can answer the moral question yourself. When it was discovered that the Nazi Government idealogue was no longer following the principles of the German people as envisioned in their Constitution and national idendity - then the people should revolt. However their failure will be punished by the government, and their success will result in the punishment of the govenment.




At which point does it become legal to state your opinion that a governmenht should be overthrown in your opinion?


That is a different question then what constitutes Freedom of Speech and protesting the government. Remember the state has the obligation to preserve itself, when the preservation of the state goes against the will of the people - the people will revolt. That point has been demonstrated in history several times - no need for me to attempt to answer such a hypotheical question with a more quantive answer, then this one, when the interests of the state goes against the will of the people, the people will often revolt. In the eyes of the govenment revolt, sedition, rebellion, insurgection and violence against the state will always be illegal.




Finally, do you really know of any threat to society that could be caused by people being allowed to state their opinion that a government should be overthrown?

The answer is self-evident. I am being to think your reaching beyond the concept of Freedom of Speech into something else.




You'd better have some really good reasons for not allowing people to speak in favor or overthrowing a regime, reasons that weigh heavier than 6 million murdered Jews, Gypsies, Handicapped, and others, as well as 50 million soldiers and civilians of various countries. Your opinion of making it forbidden to speak in favor of overthrowing a government sounds very much like the "King by the grace of God" ideals of the 17th century.

I saved reading this paragraph for last. Your confusing morality with legality. If you wish to read beyond the words used that is your problem not mine. Legality requires a government - morality requires only the individual.

With Freedom comes responsiblity - without responsiblity there is no Freedom. It does not imply it is morally incorrect to protest against the government. It does not imply that it is morally wrong to speak of rebellion and sedition. It does imply that you as an individual have a moral obligation to speak truthfully.

Freedom of Speech does not protect one from a morally correct course of action if that action crosses into something that the government by its very nature must establish laws against. (even the kindest most benvolent governments must surpress sedition)

[Rodion Romanovich]

@Redleg: No, it must be completely allowed to speak in favor of overthrowing a government, otherwise there's no free speech. To say that a government such as the nazi government has a legal right to prosecute people who merely SAID (note: not even acted) they thought the nazi government should be overthrown, is IMO very anti-democratic.

Don't you see the difference between the state preserving itself and the government preserving it's claims to the power? Overthrowing a government but maintaining the democratic system - making the new government being chosen by election - preserves the state while overthrowing the government.

Furthermore, if a government has so little public support that it would fall immediately if someone spoke in favor of overthrowing it, would you consider such a government justified to hold power?

Also, merely speaking in favor of overthrowing a government, without overthrowing it, can hardly be considered any danger to anyone under any circumstances. Let's say I'd say, after Hitler got elected and decided to soon pass a law that all Jews should carry badges: "If Hitler passes that law, I think his government is undemocratic and should be overthrown". Do you think such a statement should be illegal according to a state's laws?

Finally, make sure you understand what law is for! Law is an attempt to make a formal version of our morals. We punish murderers, because we think murderers are bad guys. We punish rapists because we don't support rape. We punish violence because we don't support violence. None of those choices of what is to be defined as a crime are arbitrary, they're formed by our own sense of morality, but altered slightly to allow for a strict interpretation - we must find precise definitions, rather than just use the half-subconscious judgement or intuition we use when we relaxedly reason about morality. And the exact definitions are also useful for legal safety of citizens, so that every citizen, before any act, knows whether that act will be considered a crime or not, to make up for the slight differences in moral intuition that we have. We state beforehand when the action will pass the line of being a crime, so that we may make it justified for ourselves to punish the citizen if he commits the act.

What I'm saying is the following - this is the very core of my message:
- a nation should by law allow every citizen to speak in favor of overthrowing it's government (by violence if necessary), but not in favor of destroying the country in itself or destroy it's system (but allow them to speak in favor of altering the system to allow for more democratic safety - i.e. like adding amendments). The moment any official of the nation decides to imprison or otherwise punish someone for using this freedom of speech, the country can immediately be considered to have passed the line of democracy and has become a dictatorship, and that it's leadership (government) is justified by law to not only speak in favor of overthrowing, but also to overthrow in practise, by any degree of violence necessary.

Again I ask you to make clear the difference between preserving a state and preserving someone's claim to a position of power. Overthrowing a government but electing the next one by normal voting procedure doesn't threaten the state. Even less does it threaten the state if someone merely speaks in favor of overthrowing a government, and doesn't even act. The less able you are to critize the government angrily, the less able the government is to know that you're disliking what they do, and the more prone they are to continue doing what they are doing wrong. The more freedom of critizising the government is removed, the less able the government is at knowing what the people wants, and the less able at being democratic it becomes.

[Redleg]

@Redleg: No, it must be completely allowed to speak in favor of overthrowing a government, otherwise there's no free speech. To say that a government such as the nazi government has a legal right to prosecute people who merely SAID (note: not even acted) they thought the nazi government should be overthrown, is IMO very anti-democratic.

Advocation of violence is not Freedom of Speech. Violence equates to denying others their rights. Governments have the obligation to preserve the state.

So sadly the advocation of the violent overthrow of the established authority does not fall under Freedom of Speech.

Protesting the actions of the government - calling for the the election process to remove the current government is within the concept of Freedom of Speech. Calling for the peaceful removal through the democratic process should always be protected speech because it allows for peaceful dissent to the government.

However advocations of violence does not have legality when facing the state. The state has the legal obligation to prevent violence. Prosecution of sedition does not equate to anti-democratic action.



Don't you see the difference between the state preserving itself and the government preserving it's claims to the power? Overthrowing a government but maintaining the democratic system - making the new government being chosen by election - preserves the state while overthrowing the government.


I believe in your attempt to equate morality, legality, and justification you have confused yourself concerning my point.

Freedom of Speech enables one to voice his dissatification with the course the government is taking, it does not protect one from their advocating the violent overthrow of the established authority. Seditous speech is not protected speech.




Furthermore, if a government has so little public support that it would fall immediately if someone spoke in favor of overthrowing it, would you consider such a government justified to hold power?

Not the issue at hand. States have the obligation to perserve itself. Governments without popular support always fall. If its done through the non-violent process of the democratic election process where the dissent agaisnt the government is done in the ballot box - the government loses it's mandate and a new government is established.

The speech involved in this process protected speech by most governments


If the people chose to use violence to overthrow the government - the government has the obligation to preserve itself and the nation state.

The speech involved in this process is not protected speech by most governments.


I also see your attempting something here - justification is different then the legal obligation of the state to preserve itself. Address the legality and the morality if you will - the justification falls within the moral perview of the individual. The state has the obligation to preserve itself



Also, merely speaking in favor of overthrowing a government, without overthrowing it, can hardly be considered any danger to anyone under any circumstances. Let's say I'd say, after Hitler got elected and decided to soon pass a law that all Jews should carry badges: "If Hitler passes that law, I think his government is undemocratic and should be overthrown". Do you think such a statement should be illegal according to a state's laws?

The illegality of the statement depends upon if the individual is speaking of violent overthrow or the recall process involved in removing a politican from office.

One is protected speech the other is not.




Finally, make sure you understand what law is for! Law is an attempt to make a formal version of our morals. We punish murderers, because we think murderers are bad guys. We punish rapists because we don't support rape. We punish violence because we don't support violence. None of those choices of what is to be defined as a crime are arbitrary, they're formed by our own sense of morality, but altered slightly to allow for a strict interpretation - we must find precise definitions, rather than just use the half-subconscious judgement or intuition we use when we relaxedly reason about morality. And the exact definitions are also useful for legal safety of citizens, so that every citizen, before any act, knows whether that act will be considered a crime or not, to make up for the slight differences in moral intuition that we have. We state beforehand when the action will pass the line of being a crime, so that we may make it justified for ourselves to punish the citizen if he commits the act.

Tsk tsk - have you lost your temper?

You have confused yourself in attempt to look for a specific definition, especially when one was given. I have stated that advocation of the violent overthrow of the government is not protected speech. You use the term overthrow. Your definition is general - my comment has a specific set of conditions that makes it non-protected speech.

Advocation of violent overthrow of the government - is inconsistent with the legal code of most free states.

Advocation of the overthrow of the current government through the democratic process of the nation is protected speech because it follows the legal established authorities mandate to power. Democracy is indeed a dangerous thing. WIth Freedom comes responsibility comes to mind once again.

Where in any legal code does it advocate the use of violence other then the preservation of self?



What I'm saying is the following - this is the very core of my message:
- a nation should by law allow every citizen to speak in favor of overthrowing it's government (by violence if necessary), but not in favor of destroying the country in itself or destroy it's system (but allow them to speak in favor of altering the system to allow for more democratic safety - i.e. like adding amendments). The moment any official of the nation decides to imprison or otherwise punish someone for using this freedom of speech, the country can immediately be considered to have passed the line of democracy and has become a dictatorship, and that it's leadership (government) is justified by law to not only speak in favor of overthrowing, but also to overthrow in practise, by any degree of violence necessary.

violence is inconsistent with the legal code of most states. Violence ensures that Freedom of Speech falls.



Again I ask you to make clear the difference between preserving a state and preserving someone's claim to a position of power. Overthrowing a government but electing the next one by normal voting procedure doesn't threaten the state. Even less does it threaten the state if someone merely speaks in favor of overthrowing a government, and doesn't even act. The less able you are to critize the government angrily, the less able the government is to know that you're disliking what they do, and the more prone they are to continue doing what they are doing wrong. The more freedom of critizising the government is removed, the less able the government is at knowing what the people wants, and the less able at being democratic it becomes.

I have made it clear - it is you who refuse to read what is stated. Violence is not protected Speech nor is it consistent with the concept of Freedom of Speech.

THe government has the obligation to preserve itself and the state. The people have the moral obligation to insure that the government acts in their best interest.

When the two clash - ie the government does not serve the people - then the democratic and protected under the concept of Freedom of Speech course of action is peaceful protests against the government and the advocation of the recall process to remove the current government.

Violence is not protected speech. When the government goes so far that it requires the violent overthrow of the government - don't expect the government to allow for the advocation of its violent removal. Violence and its advocation does not equates to protected speech in a democratic society.

[Rodion Romanovich]

@Redleg: ok, I think I understand you. You mean that German citizens of the Weimar republic shouldn't have the right at any time during the period 1933-1945 to say they wanted Hitler overthrown, with violence if necessary, not even after he removed democracy, and that they in your eyes would be criminals if they would say they wanted him overthrown, and that they in your opinion should be prosecuted for it. I think your opinion is sad and horrible, and distance myself from it in all ways possible.

Furthermore, one point of interest is that you don't seem to consider it illegal to advocate violence against criminals, such as murderers and rapists, a view shared by many persons when they in the news hear about some recently committed rape or murder. It seems you are ready to make exceptions from your rule that all advocating of violence should be illegal, right? But you only make an exception against murderers and rapists, but not against Hitler and similar persons who do far more damage? When you're ready to make exceptions from the rule, why not make an exception for genocidal manaics too? Or do you consider them worthy of protection by law?

[Redleg]

@Redleg: ok, I think I understand you. You mean that German citizens of the Weimar republic shouldn't have the right at any time during the period 1933-1945 to say they wanted Hitler overthrown, with violence if necessary, not even after he removed democracy, and that they in your eyes would be criminals if they would say they wanted him overthrown, and that they in your opinion should be prosecuted for it. I think your opinion is sad and horrible, and distance myself from it in all ways possible.

Putting words into my mouth so to speak, and from reading this post your not even close to understanding.

Where did I state any such thing. Legality and morality often have conflicting outcomes.

Now did I say they did not have a right - or did I say the nation state will find their actions to be illegal. The state has the obligation to preserve itself, the government is its agent in that matter.

When the interest of the state conflicts with the people - revolt will happen, however the government will always determine that revolts are not a right and are therefor illegal. A moral correct view is sometimes not a legally correct view. As your examble of the Weimer Republic would show if you took a step back from your arguement versus attempt to prove my view wrong.

Freedom of Speech does not negate the responsiblity and consequences of sedition and advocation of violence against the state. All states have upheld that violent overthrow of the government is not a right. Nor is sedition a right. The United States fought a bloodly civil war over the issue of sedition.

Try reading again and think outside of your own prespective of things.


What is legal and what is moral are often two different things.

Freedom requires responsiblity.





Furthermore, one point of interest is that you don't seem to consider it illegal to advocate violence against criminals, such as murderers and rapists, a view shared by many persons when they in the news hear about some recently committed rape or murder. It seems you are ready to make exceptions from your rule that all advocating of violence should be illegal, right? But you only make an exception against murderers and rapists, but not against Hitler and similar persons who do far more damage? When you're ready to make exceptions from the rule, why not make an exception for genocidal manaics too? Or do you consider them worthy of protection by law?

Care to actually find where I advocate violence against criminals outside of the legal code alreadly imposed by the democratic system, I know of only one instance and that was from an emotional viewpoint, dealing with the animials that are child molestors who then murder the child.

Your now crossing into ad hominem arguement versus arguing against the position a rarely telling switch in your arguement. I guess if you can't find an arguement to actually show where my opinion is wrong that one must resort to personal and made up positions concerning my statements.

If this is the best you can do - you will have to try again. It is a common problem when people don't understand that freedom requires responsiblity, nor when they view things in a very narrow idealogue that does not bode for honest discussion.

What is a right morally, does not always equate to what is right legally.


The problem is Legion is you wanted a specific definition and when it was provided - you refuse to accept it. The advocation of violent overthrow of the states is not protected under Freedom of Speech in any democratic or otherwise nation state. Attempting to reach for moral equilence by comparing my postion to something it is not - smacks of poor understanding of the concept under discussion - or that you wish for me to conform to your way of thinking.

Freedom of speech is also freedom of thought. It seems you have a problem dealing with different viewpoints then your own.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Putting words into my mouth so to speak, and from reading this post your not even close to understanding.

You're stating that you think it should be illegal to advocate violence against any government. I'm merely pointing out one example of when such a viewpoint doesn't work well in practise. Do you or don't you think it should be illegal to advocate the overthrowing of a government, with advocating that violence may be used to achieve it if necessary? Do you think there should be such a law or not?



Where did I state any such thing. Legality and morality often have conflicting outcomes.

That's typically what makes us change or extend our laws in normal societies. Laws are a formalized version of the common moral values, and their purpose is to bring morals to our society form by making sure that being evil according to our moral values doesn't pay off in our society form, so that people refrain from evil deeds, and we thereby protect our innocent citizens from vicious acts. There's no other use for law than that except as a means for oppression.



The state has the obligation to preserve itself, the government is its agent in that matter.

So do you think Hitler had a moral and legal obligation to persecute people who advocated the overthrowing of him with use of violence if necessary?



All states have upheld that violent overthrow of the government is not a right.


Not all, and furthermore I'm not speaking of the right to overthrow a government by violence, only the right to speak in favor of overthrowing a government by violence. It's like comparing someone who murders with someone who says "I'd like to kill you if I could".



The United States fought a bloodly civil war over the issue of sedition.


Altering history here, are we? Please show how freedom of speech caused the American civil war because I find it hard to connect any case of freedom of speech with the causes for the American civil war.



Try reading again and think outside of your own prespective of things.


Maybe you should take that message to heart yourself some time.



Care to actually find where I advocate violence against criminals outside of the legal code alreadly imposed by the democratic system, I know of only one instance and that was from an emotional viewpoint, dealing with the animials that are child molestors who then murder the child.


Exactly, you're indeed making an exception from your golden rule that advocating violence against someone else should be illegal. Why not make such an exceptions against the animals that Hitler and other genocidal dictators are too? Please explain to me why you consider child molestors bad enough to make it legally allowed to speak freely in favor of violence against them, but Hitler and other genocidal dictators not bad enough to make it legally allowed to speak freely in favor of violence against them. You're going even further than that, a statement that "use violence if necessary" against Hitler and genocidal dictators is in your moral opinion good to make illegal while you think it's should be legal to speak freely in favor of violence, not just "if necessary", against the child molestors.

[Redleg]

You're stating that you think it should be illegal to advocate violence against any government. I'm merely pointing out one example of when such a viewpoint doesn't work. Do you or don't you think it should be illegal to advocate the overthrowing of a government, with advocating that violence may be used to achieve it if necessary? From a moral point of view.

One instance makes for an exception not a rule. Its illegal based upon the law of the nation state, from a moral point of view - people must do what they believe is the morally right thing to do. However that also requires one to accept the consequences of thier actions.




That's typically what makes us change or extend our laws. Laws are a formalized version of the common moral values, and their purpose is to bring morals to our society form by making sure that being evil according to our moral values doesn't pay off in our society form.


Okay - I don't agree because its a simple thing to point out laws that have no moral values in their base.



So do you think Hitler had an obligation to persecute people who advocated the overthrowing of him, advocating the use of violence if necessary?


Are you attempting a moral equalivancy question once again? If you haven't figured it out yet - I won't play the moral equalivancy game in this discussion. Freedom of Speech and its application is to important for such attempts.

Hilter had an obligation under the state to preserve the state. People have a moral obligation to insure the state is serving the people's best interest. If the constitution of the Weimer Republic stated that sedition was illegal - then Hilter had an obligation to persecute any and all who advocated the violent overthrow of the established authority.



Not all, and furthermore I'm not speaking of the right to overthrow a government by violence, only the right to speak in favor of overthrowing a government by violence. It's like comparing someone murdering someone with someone who says "I'd like to kill you".


If I advocate the murder of an individual - by law I can be prosecuted for my speech.

If one advocates the violent overthrow of the authority - they are exercising a form of speech that will often result in prosecution by the state.




Altering history here, are we? Please show how freedom of speech caused the American civil war because I find it hard to connect any case of freedom of speech with the causes for the American civil war.


Check out the topic of sedition. No alteration of history on my part. The Southern states advocated the violent removal of Federal troops in their states.




Maybe you should take that message to heart yourself some time.


Your first.




Exactly, you're indeed making an exception from your golden rule that advocating violence against someone else should be illegal. Why not make such an exceptions against the animals that Hitler and other genocidal dictators are?

Free Speech alreadly has exceptions. Remember the people of Germany willing followed Hilter. So attempt to moral equalancy here does not apply.

Your comparision here would indicate that you support the United States efforts on removing the Taliban from power, Saddam Hussian from power, I can also play the moral equalivent game. If Hilter is bad - under the criteria you are using here - Saddam is bad and required removal by his people. Oh wait they tried that and we all know how that ended up. Playing Moral equalvency (SP) does not always work, especially in the manner in which you are attempting with this line of arguement.

Now I said I detest those individauls - I never stated that an exception to the rule should be made. Follow the legal recourse is what I stated afterwards.




Please explain to me why you consider child molestors bad enough to make it legally allowed to speak freely in favor of violence against them, but Hitler and other genocidal dictators not bad enough to make it legally allowed to speak freely in favor of violence against them. You're going even further than that, a statement that "use violence if necessary" against Hitler and genocidal dictators is in your moral opinion good to make illegal while you can speak freely in favor of violence, not just "if necessary", against the child molestors.

Legality and morality are often to different issue - you continue to miss that point. What is morally correct to do is often not legally correct to do.

Making a moral equalivent arguement does not work.

[Rodion Romanovich]

One instance makes for an exception not a rule. Its illegal based upon the law of the nation state, from a moral point of view - people must do what they believe is the morally right thing to do. However that also requires one to accept the consequences of thier actions.


Let me mention a few more instances:
- Adolf Hitler
- Benito Mussolini
- Pol Pot
- Red khmers
- Josef Stalin
- Slobodan Milosevic
- Saddam Hussein
- a dozen men in South America
- and a dozen African dictators
...to mention just a few of the most recent cases.

So indeed there's enough examples for it to be worth taking the danger of mad dictators into account when making constitutional laws. It's obvious that all countries with self-esteem should apply a list of rules which no leader of the country may pass without being "excommunicated" and legally justified to overthrow by any means. For instance if the government imprisons a citizen for merely stating his opinion, or the government builds camps for execution of people based on race, religion or political opinions. It must be a constitutional right and duty to remove a government in your own country from power if they step over certain lines. It must be a central part of the consitution and a constitutional law which may not be altered. I see no reason why such a law shouldn't be part of the constitution of all countries, considering how often dictatorship regimes appear, and how devastating they are to the masses.



Okay - I don't agree because its a simple thing to point out laws that have no moral values in their base.

Such laws are typically removed, or likely to be removed if they ever come up as a discussion among politicians. Feel free to give any counter-examples if you can find any.



Are you attempting a moral equalivancy question once again? If you haven't figured it out yet - I won't play the moral equalivancy game in this discussion. Freedom of Speech and its application is to important for such attempts.

Hilter had an obligation under the state to preserve the state. People have a moral obligation to insure the state is serving the people's best interest. If the constitution of the Weimer Republic stated that sedition was illegal - then Hilter had an obligation to persecute any and all who advocated the violent overthrow of the established authority.

Let me clarify the question - assume you had full power to decide how the constitution should look. Would you think it would be good to have as part of that constitution a law that said the citizens would never ever - even if the leader passed a point of madness such as when creating death camps, and started imprisoning people who merely stated their opinion - be allowed to advocate the overthrowing of the leader, with violence if needed?



Check out the topic of sedition. No alteration of history on my part. The Southern states advocated the violent removal of Federal troops in their states.


I fail to see how this relates to your opinion that nobody should be allowed to speak in favor of overthrowing their own government if that government passes certain points such as creating concentration camps and launching genocide. In my opinion, it should be in every constitution of every country's law a passus that says: the moment a government starts to prosecute free speech, or remove other democratic rights (followed by a full list of which rights the passus would concern), that government is no longer legitimate, and it's legal to overthrow them with any violence it requires, so that a new government may be elected.



Your first.


No, after you my lady, I insist :flowers:



Free Speech alreadly has exceptions. Remember the people of Germany willing followed Hilter. So attempt to moral equalancy here does not apply.


There were many Germans who openly protested, and got sent off to camps early on. There were more Germans who didn't praise Hitler loudly enough, who were sent off to camps. After the war, most Germans could freely say they were never on Hitler's side. Of course many of those who were on Hitler's side had reason to lie about it after the war, but all approximations show that a clear majority was against most of what Hitler did. Some were supporting the plan for revenge for the Versailles treaty though. But it is (and would also have been in 1933-1945 if Hitler hadn't ruled Germany at that time) difficult to find more people supporting anti-semitism in Germany than in any other place. That shows the danger of removing free speech by scaring people from stating their opinion. The moment the first who advocated the overthrowing of the nazi government were sent off to death camps, the entire German population lived in fear of protesting against the nazi government, and because nobody protested, both the average German and the average citizen of the Allies' countries thought that the German population supported what Hitler did. It wasn't as much that people didn't want to, as it was that people didn't dare to, be different. The moment you remove freedom of speech as in speaking in favor of the overthrowing of your own government, by violence if necessary, after your government has gone insane, you pass a point where democracy can no longer exist.

You should remember that when genocidal dictators come to power and start their massmurder, they seldom do so by saying: "elect me, and you'll get higher salaries, lower taxes, and genocide!". They hide their intentions as long as possible, try to mask their intentions by temporarily satisfying the people. Step by step they remove one democratic right after another, while gradually increasing the fear of protesting. If it's a part of the constitution that a government that removes certain democratic rights (that there is no justifiable reason to remove unless you're going to do evil things) becomes illegitimate upon doing so, it would ring a warning bell if any leader would remove any of those rights. It would also give the people a better feeling of doing the right thing when revolting against such a leader, rather than being scared of being alone in hating the dictator. It would also make it clearer to the people when the moment for when revolt is necessary has come.



Your comparision here would indicate that you support the United States efforts on removing the Taliban from power, Saddam Hussian from power, I can also play the moral equalivent game.


I fail to see the connection between these two things
- my opinion: allowing free speech so that people are allowed to advocate the right of a citizen to speak in favor of overthrowing the own government if that own government has passed a line where it is no longer democratic after having imprisoned people for stating their opinion, or created concentration camps for genocide or murder of dissenters.
- your example: not only speak in favor of removing a not own but foreign government, but also doing so. (For the record I think you're allowed to speak in favor of removing any foreign government by the way - actually doing it requires a specific justification)

I think there's a huge difference between these two cases. Again you compare a man X who murders Y, with a man X who says "I think person Y deserves to die".



Now I said I detest those individauls - I never stated that an exception to the rule should be made. Follow the legal recourse is what I stated afterwards.

So you think anyone who advocates death penalty or violence against the monsters that child molestors are should be prosecuted and punished for it? You're a bit vague at this point - should there or shouldn't there in law be an exception from your golden rule? If no - would you want to be locked up in jail because you said child molestors deserve death or violence? If yes - why can you make an exception for child molestors but not for genocidal dictators - why should genocidal dictators be considered better than child molestors?



the legal recourse is what I stated
I think you're to afraid to have any opinion of the moral aspects of things, or how laws of a nation should be made to provide safety for it's citizens. You keep quoting existing laws (sometimes neither supporting them nor being against them), rather than stating your own opinion.

[Redleg]

Let me mention a few more instances:
- Adolf Hitler
- Benito Mussolini
- Pol Pot
- Red khmers
- Josef Stalin
- Slobodan Milosevic
- Saddam Hussein
- a dozen men in South America
- and a dozen African dictators
...to mention just a few of the most recent cases.

So indeed there's enough examples for it to be worth taking the danger of mad dictators into account when making constitutional laws. It's obvious that all countries with self-esteem should apply a list of rules which no leader of the country may pass without being "excommunicated" and legally justified to overthrow by any means. For instance if the government imprisons a citizen for merely stating his opinion, or the government builds camps for execution of people based on race, religion or political opinions. It must be a constitutional right and duty to remove a government in your own country from power if they step over certain lines. It must be a central part of the consitution and a constitutional law which may not be altered. I see no reason why such a law shouldn't be part of the constitution of all countries, considering how often dictatorship regimes appear, and how devastating they are to the masses.



In each of those instance - did they raise to power upon the popular opinion of the population or did they raise to power upon the uprising of the people, ie a revolt?


Again your attempting a moral equalivency argument what is legally right is not alway consistent with morally correct.

The arguement concerns what is Freedom of Speech not what is the moral equalivent arguement concerning Freedom of Speech.

Sedition and advocation of violent overthrow (which is also defined as sedition) is not protect speech. I have alreadly cited the United States Constitition where it states that the Congress will supress sedition.




Such laws are typically removed, or likely to be removed if they ever come up as a discussion among politicians. Feel free to give any counter-examples if you can find any.


Real easy - all Tax laws, seatbelt laws, smoking laws, jaywalking laws, Shall I continue?




Let me clarify the question - assume you had full power to decide how the constitution should look. Would you think it would be good to have as part of that constitution a law that said the citizens would never ever - even if the leader passed a point of madness such as when creating death camps, and started imprisoning people who merely stated their opinion - be allowed to advocate the overthrowing of the leader, with violence if needed?


obvious moral equalivency attempt again. The advocation of the violent overthrow of the government is not protect speech. The advocation of the removal from office of a leader is alreadly part of not only the United States Constitution but lies fully within the concept of Freedom of Speech.





I fail to see how this relates to your opinion that nobody should be allowed to speak in favor of overthrowing their own government if that government passes certain points such as creating concentration camps and launching genocide. In my opinion, it should be in every constitution of every country's law a passus that says: the moment a government starts to prosecute free speech, or remove other democratic rights (followed by a full list of which rights the passus would concern), that government is no longer legitimate, and it's legal to overthrow them with any violence it requires, so that a new government may be elected.


Your failing to see a lot. Advocation of violent removal of the government authority is not protected speech.



No, after you my lady, I insist :flowers:


Resorting to another insult I see. Your stuck on a moral equalivency arguement. The legality of sedition speech has alreadly been shown - most states consider it illegal. Its not protected speech.



There were many Germans who openly protested, and got sent off to camps early on. There were more Germans who didn't praise Hitler loudly enough, who were sent off to camps. After the war, most Germans could freely say they were never on Hitler's side. Of course many of those who were on Hitler's side had reason to lie about it after the war, but all approximations show that a clear majority was against most of what Hitler did. Some were supporting the plan for revenge for the Versailles treaty though. But it is (and would also have been in 1933-1945 if Hitler hadn't ruled Germany at that time) difficult to find more people supporting anti-semitism in Germany than in any other place. That shows the danger of removing free speech by scaring people from stating their opinion. The moment the first who advocated the overthrowing of the nazi government were sent off to death camps, the entire German population lived in fear of protesting against the nazi government, and because nobody protested, both the average German and the average citizen of the Allies' countries thought that the German population supported what Hitler did. It wasn't as much that people didn't want to, as it was that people didn't dare to, be different. The moment you remove freedom of speech as in speaking in favor of the overthrowing of your own government, by violence if necessary, after your government has gone insane, you pass a point where democracy can no longer exist.


Again the people of Germany willing followed Hilter into the hell that was Nazi Germany. Be it from fear, an unwillingness to follow a moral correct path or what have you. If the interest of the state conflicts with the desires of the people - the people will revolt. The legality of that revolt will be decided by the victor. If they fail their actions are illegal, if they win they write thier own legality about the revolt.


The Freedom of Speech issues that were futher eroded by Hilter were alreadly in place in Germany. It seem Hilter was jailed for his politics as well before he came into power.



You should remember that when genocidal dictators come to power and start their massmurder, they seldom do so by saying: "elect me, and you'll get higher salaries, lower taxes, and genocide!". They hide their intentions as long as possible, try to mask their intentions by temporarily satisfying the people. Step by step they remove one democratic right after another, while gradually increasing the fear of protesting. If it's a part of the constitution that a government that removes certain democratic rights (that there is no justifiable reason to remove unless you're going to do evil things) becomes illegitimate upon doing so, it would ring a warning bell if any leader would remove any of those rights. It would also give the people a better feeling of doing the right thing when revolting against such a leader, rather than being scared of being alone in hating the dictator. It would also make it clearer to the people when the moment for when revolt is necessary has come.


the advocation of the violent overthrow of the established authority is not protected speech, nor should it be.

Dissent against the government however is allowed under the concept of Freedom of Speech.



I fail to see the connection between these two things
- my opinion: allowing free speech so that people are allowed to advocate the right of a citizen to speak in favor of overthrowing the own government if that own government has passed a line where it is no longer democratic after having imprisoned people for stating their opinion, or created concentration camps for genocide or murder of dissenters.
- your example: not only speak in favor of removing a not own but foreign government, but also doing so. (For the record I think you're allowed to speak in favor of removing any foreign government by the way - actually doing it requires a specific justification)


Now you see why I don't advocate the inclusion that the advocation of the violent overthrow of the government is protected speech. Where do you stop when you begin to advocate violence?




I think there's a huge difference between these two cases. Again you compare a man X who murders Y, with a man X who says "I think person Y deserves to die".


That is not the comparison.

man x murders man y
man x advocates the death of man y.



So you think anyone who advocates death penalty or violence against the monsters that child molestors are should be prosecuted and punished for it? You're a bit vague at this point - should there or shouldn't there in law be an exception from your golden rule? If no - would you want to be locked up in jail because you said child molestors deserve death or violence? If yes - why can you make an exception for child molestors but not for genocidal dictators - why should genocidal dictators be considered better than child molestors?

To put it simple child molestors should be locked up and given life in prison so that they can not perform the act ever again. Attempting to use an old arguement without understanding the position is a weak attempt by the way.



I think you're to afraid to have any opinion of the moral aspects of things, or how laws of a nation should be made to provide safety for it's citizens. You keep quoting existing laws (sometimes neither supporting them nor being against them), rather than stating your own opinion.

Your so far off you haven't got a clue. I have often stated my moral position several times. Why do you think Goofball once tried to call me a bigot or Kafir called me a facist. Both were just as wrong as you are now.

Notice how many times in the past I have stated this particlur statement.

With Freedom comes responsiblity.

It sums up my postion on Freedom of Speech issues very nicely. So does the opening statement of mine in this thread.

Here I will remind you of what it was.


Freedom of Speech is a concept which allows an individual to speak his mind without fear of prosecution from the government. Freedom of Speech does not remove the responsibility from the individual to insure that his speech is factual. One can not always be predict how people will take their speech - but the government has upheld a few standards that seem reasonable on the surface.

States have upheld that Freedom of Speech does not entitle one to speak in such a manner that advocates harm to another person or group. States also have in their self-interest (the states interest) limited speech that advocates the violent overthrow of the government authority.

If one has Freedom to Speak their mind - they must also accept the responsiblity that goes with it. This is the dilemia of free speech, most want the freedom but not the responsibility that goes with it.

Maybe you should take a step back and think before we continue this discussion - your beginning to step way off the baseline of the discussion. Moral equalivency does not apply to the discussion of Freedom of Speech.

[Rodion Romanovich]

In each of those instance - did they raise to power upon the popular opinion of the population or did they raise to power upon the uprising of the people, ie a revolt?


Some rose by gradually removing democratic rights. Others rose by overthrowing a government that didn't allow freedom of speech, and thus managed to degrade so much before people started speaking, that they accepted anything - no matter how bad - in it's place when revolt came. None of them rose because their countries had freedom of speech.



Real easy - all Tax laws, seatbelt laws, smoking laws, jaywalking laws, Shall I continue?

Tax is because we think it's morally important to redistribute money to give people who can't compete for the few jobs a chance to survive (socialist governments think it's morally important to grant them more than just survival). Seatbelt laws are because we think it's morally incorrect that a parent shouldn't take responsibility for the safety of it's child, and the fact that people without seatbelts can fly out of their cars during a collission and hurt others, and finally that society to some extent considers itself to have a moral responsibility for it's citizens not hurting themselves (the latter being a matter of dispute). I'm not familiar with what the word jaywalking means. But as you can see, all laws have very a solid foundation in moral values, even if it isn't obvious to all of us at first glance. Otherwise they wouldn't exist.



Resorting to another insult I see

"Another insult" requires that there is an insult, and that there has been one before



Again the people of Germany willing followed Hilter into the hell that was Nazi Germany. Be it from fear, an unwillingness to follow a moral correct path or what have you. If the interest of the state conflicts with the desires of the people - the people will revolt. The legality of that revolt will be decided by the victor. If they fail their actions are illegal, if they win they write thier own legality about the revolt.

If we can find a way to protect people from such things, I think we should. Especially when the cost of it is nothing other than that we make removal of democracy and rise of dictatorship more difficult in the process.


If the interest of the state conflicts with the desires of the people

The people are the state. Their interests can never conflict with each others. A government's or dictator's interests can however conflict with the interests of the people - and thereby the state.



The Freedom of Speech issues that were futher eroded by Hilter were alreadly in place in Germany. It seem Hilter was jailed for his politics as well before he came into power.

Hitler was jailed for acting, not for talking. He tried a coup to take dictatorial power over Germany. Note: a coup against a government which allowed freedom of speech. His later removal of democracy happened when he himself already held power over Germany! That means it wasn't a justified action - removal of the current ruler is sometimes justified if the current ruler is mad. But if you are the ruler yourself, then I don't understand how you could possibly manage to lead a justified revolt against the regime.



the advocation of the violent overthrow of the established authority is not protected speech, nor should it be.

You could say that Tsar Romanov and Louis XVI were "established authority". The population thought otherwise when both of those through their decisions and oppression made it impossible for the population to get food. Romanov was also well known for his infamous secret police, which arrested people for saying what they thought. In religious Europe up to the 18th-19th century, being "King by the grace of God" was considered established authority.



Now you see why I don't advocate the inclusion that the advocation of the violent overthrow of the government is protected speech. Where do you stop when you begin to advocate violence?

I still haven't been given any single example of where freedom to state your opinion (note: merely speaking, but not acting) that a government should be overthrown, by violence if necessary, has caused any problems comparable with the problems caused by Hitler, and the rest of the people I mentioned on my list above. Actually I find it hard to believe that if you would sum up all examples in history arguing for your opinion of removing this fundamental part of freedom of speech, those together wouldn't beat the 50 million dead caused by just a single instance of the type of threat I think we should protect ourselves from. And again I ask you why would it hurt to strengthen our protection from genocidal dictators if it would cost us nothing to do so?



That is not the comparison.

man x murders man y
man x advocates the death of man y.


So you wouldn't call it "advocate overthrow of a government" if you say "I think the government deserves to be overthrown"? If you do, you must accept that my parable was the correct one. If you don't, then your parable applies, but then you're discussing a completely different matter than I am discussing.



To put it simple child molestors should be locked up and given life in prison so that they can not perform the act ever again. Attempting to use an old arguement without understanding the position is a weak attempt by the way.

You're trying to avoid the question. Maybe you remember the death penalty discussion we had a few months ago. While you don't seem to advocate violence against the child molestors, do you think all those who spoke in favor of death penalty against child molestors in that debate should be prosecuted for stating their opinion? Do you consider your golden rule "advocating violence against anyone should be illegal and all who advocate violence against another should be prosecuted" to have exceptions or not?

Normal laws of most countries today phrase the restrictions on free speech by specifically forbidding "advocating violence against someone based on race, religion or political leanings" (note the important part in italic font). Those laws cover most of the necessary restrictions on free speech. But the principle you're advocating would make 99% of all humans criminals.



Your so far off you haven't got a clue. I have often stated my moral position several times. Why do you think Goofball once tried to call me a bigot or Kafir called me a facist. Both were just as wrong as you are now.

If there are many people who misunderstand you and think you're a fascist, maybe it's your phrasing of your opinion that is unclear. But I don't think you're a fascist, I think you mean well deep down and that it's merely that you're entangling yourself in your attempts to formulate general principles, which you refuse to invalidate when you find counter-examples against them. That's why I ask you questions "do you really hold this [insert possibly fascistical opinion here] opinion or not?" rather than accusing you of being a fascist without proof rather than ending the discussion in understanding and as friends. A principle which I think applies to freedom of speech too, by the way: "I might dislike your opinion but I'd die for your right to state it".



It sums up my postion on Freedom of Speech issues very nicely. So does the opening statement of mine in this thread.

Considering that many people, including myself, still have trouble understanding exactly what you're trying to say with that statement - one second you say things which are almost defending Hitler's nazi government, and the next moment you say that you still dislike Hitler. We're asking questions not because we are unable to read what you have written, but because in what you have written previously you haven't answered all of our questions. This statement for instance:



States have upheld that Freedom of Speech does not entitle one to speak in such a manner that advocates harm to another person or group. States also have in their self-interest (the states interest) limited speech that advocates the violent overthrow of the government authority.

...repeatedly says that the government may and should arrest people for verbally speaking in favor of overthrowing the government (note: not carrying out any actual violent act). That's an ideology that only belongs in the arsenal of a dictator like Hitler or Stalin IMO. That's what makes us all shocked, and makes us ask specific questions to find out if you're really supporting that undemocratic view, or - as we hope: you made a typo or we're merely misunderstanding the wording of your statement.

[Redleg]

Some rose by gradually removing democratic rights. Others rose by overthrowing a government that didn't allow freedom of speech, and thus managed to degrade so much before people started speaking, that they accepted anything - no matter how bad - in it's place when revolt came.

And supports my postion completely now doesn't




Tax is because we think it's morally important to redistribute money to give people who can't compete for the few jobs a chance to survive (socialist governments think it's morally important to grant them more than just survival). Seatbelt laws are because we think it's morally incorrect that a parent shouldn't take responsibility for the safety of it's child, and the fact that people without seatbelts can fly out of their cars during a collission and hurt others, and finally that society to some extent considers itself to have a moral responsibility for it's citizens not hurting themselves (the latter being a matter of dispute). I'm not familiar with what the word jaywalking means. But as you can see, all laws have very a solid foundation in moral values, even if it isn't obvious to all of us at first glance. Otherwise they wouldn't exist.

Laws exist for multiple reasons - there is no morality of wearing a seatbelt
or not wearing a seatbelt.



"Another insult" requires that there is an insult, and that there has been one before


Moral equalivency strikes again I see.



If we can find a way to protect people from such things, I think we should. Especially when the cost of it is nothing other than that we make removal of democracy and rise of dictatorship more difficult in the process.

Stating that the advocation of the violent overthrow of the government does not support such a conclusion.




Hitler was jailed for acting, not for talking. He tried a coup to take dictatorial power over Germany.

Correct - but how many of his speeches before hand were disrupted by the government?



You could say that Tsar Romanov and Louis XVI were "established authority". The population thought otherwise when both of those through their decisions and oppression made it impossible for the population to get food. Romanov was also well known for his infamous secret police, which arrested people for saying what they thought. In religious Europe up to the 18th-19th century, being "King by the grace of God" was considered established authority.

This falls within the concept I am talking about - when the state no longer serves the people the people will revolt. The advocation of the revolt however is not protected speech.



I still haven't been given any single example of where freedom to state your opinion (note: merely speaking, but not acting) that a government should be overthrown, by violence if necessary, has caused any problems comparable with the problems caused by Hitler, and the rest of the people I mentioned on my list above. Actually I find it hard to believe that if you would sum up all examples in history arguing for your opinion of removing this fundamental part of freedom of speech, those together wouldn't beat the 50 million dead caused by just a single instance of the type of threat I think we should protect ourselves from. And again I ask you why would it hurt to strengthen our protection from genocidal dictators if it would cost us nothing to do so?


That is because simply put the ability to state that one advocates the violent overthrow of the established authority does not exist as a right. Nor is part of the speech protected by the concept of Freedom of Speech. Take a look into the different nations and find how many have laws that protect speech that advocates the violent overthrow of the established government.

I bet you will find more laws against sedition then you will find protecting seditious speech.




So you wouldn't call it "advocate overthrow of a government" if you say "I think the government deserves to be overthrown"? If you do, you must accept that my parable was the correct one. If you don't, then your parable applies, but then you're discussing a completely different matter than I am discussing.

Notice how many times I state the violent overthrow of the government. The peaceful demonstrations that call for the removal of the government authority is protected speech - the speech that advocates violence is not.


You're trying to avoid the question. Maybe you remember the death penalty discussion we had a few months ago. While you don't seem to advocate violence against the child molestors, do you think all those who spoke in favor of death penalty against child molestors in that debate should be prosecuted for stating their opinion? Do you consider your golden rule "advocating violence against anyone should be illegal and all who advocate violence against another should be prosecuted" to have exceptions or not?

Not avoiding the question at all - the answer was given.



Normal laws of most countries today phrase the restrictions on free speech by specifically forbidding "advocating violence against someone based on race, religion or political leanings" (note the important part in italic font). Those laws cover most of the necessary restrictions on free speech. But the principle you're advocating would make 99% of all humans criminals.


Not at all - its one and the same.



If there are many people who misunderstand you and think you're a fascist, maybe it's your phrasing of your opinion that is unclear. But I don't think you're a fascist, I think you mean well deep down and that it's merely that you're entangling yourself in your attempts to formulate general principles, which you refuse to invalidate when you find counter-examples against them. That's why I ask you questions "do you really hold this [insert possibly fascistical opinion here] opinion or not?" rather than accusing you of being a fascist without proof.

Oh boy you tried something and now your doing what you have just accused me of. Nicely done.....not.




Considering that many people, including myself, still have trouble understanding exactly what you're trying to say with that statement - one second you say things which are almost defending Hitler's nazi government, and the next moment you say that you still dislike Hitler. We're asking questions not because we are unable to read what you have written, but because in what you have written previously you haven't answered our questions. This statement for instance:

If you think I have defended Hilter's Nazi government then you have misread everything written. Attempting to play moral equalivancy games does not apply to a discussion of Freedom of Speech.



...repeatedly says that the government may and should arrest people for verbally protesting (note: not carrying out any actual violent act) against the government.

That is not what it states. It states simply that speech is protected as long as it does not advocate violence.


That's an ideology that only belongs in the arsenal of a dictator like Hitler or Stalin. That's what makes us all shocked, and makes us ask specific questions to find out if you're really supporting that undemocratic view, or - as we hope - you made a typo or we're merely misunderstanding the wording of your statement.

Again your comment is based upon your own misreading of the statement. Notice the words violent overthrow of the goverment is in there - not protesting the government.

Here I will bold it for you this time.


States have upheld that Freedom of Speech does not entitle one to speak in such a manner that advocates harm to another person or group. States also have in their self-interest (the states interest) limited speech that advocates the violent overthrow of the government authority.

The fault of not understanding the statement lies in your reading for something that is not there. Looking for Nazi comparisions is playing a moral equalivency that is very telling.

[Xiahou]

I don't think the act will be upheld if it is ever challenged. On its face it seems unconstitutional and should generate sometime in the near future a constitutional crisis.

However most Judges do not want their decisions questioned either - so they will most likely indeed rule in favor of such a restriction of speech in the political process.
Sadly, it was upheld by the SCOTUS back in 2003. Of course, it was the usual suspects + O'Connor that made the majority of the 5-4 split in favor of wiping their asses with the Constitution. Since then, O'Connor has been replaced by Alito- so we might hope for a better result if it somehow gets brought before the courts again.

[Redleg]

Sadly, it was upheld by the SCOTUS back in 2003. Of course, it was the usual suspects + O'Connor that made the majority of the 5-4 split in favor of wiping their asses with the Constitution. Since then, O'Connor has been replaced by Alito- so we might hope for a better result if it somehow gets brought before the courts again.

It will just require an individual to go in front of the courts again I believe. This is where the ACLU could make some money with many - bringing these type of Freedom of Speech issues back into the limelight of thier organization.

[Soulforged]

A direct causation is not a causal relationship.Care to demonstrate your tesis?

Sedition is an act against the established government. Liberalists and sedition does not necessarily go hand and hand. One can be a liberal without advocating the violent overthrow of the established authority.Never said that. And you said that "not necessarily". Not all principles of liberalism are respected, many are restricted, many are restricted with out reason, I think this exception made by sedition is not unreasonable looking at it from the point of view of the state, I just don't like it, call it philosophic intuition.

Must be you - the cause is the speech - using the word Fire when there is no fire.And what about saying the word fire when there's fire? Anyway, that's pointless.... What you've to measure here is what's the probability of a disaster happening when saying such things, and even then there's no crime unless there's an actual disaster or some person injured at least.

Civil cases more to point is between individuals who have a disagreement. Slander is a civil case, based upon a public utterance.Exactly.

The American Civil War. I don't even have to use a hypothecial situation. There is no sedition speech currently that I know of in the United States that is prosecutable by the United States Government. Sedition speech requires the advocation of force to remove the established authority.But what would constitute sedition right now? Is for example the advocation in a TV show "sedition"? The example of theather is also pretty good... What's sedition following the interpretation of the american courts? By the way you gave even a better example with the Whisky Rebellion, I liked it, it demonstrated your point quite well, but everything changes with time, and I'm talking about an alternative interpretation that might or might not be inferred for the Constitution of your country or the republican or liberalist principles in general that many other countries uphold in general.

Of course because Sedition is not considered covered under the 1st Ammendment which is often refered to as Freedom of Speech.So you don't make any difference between advocation of sedition and sedition?

Then you were not listening.
Yes I were. "It will have the same effect - hate speech is in the preception of the reciever not your intent. The power of the spoken word still exists regardless of your attempt to equate it to "magic."" Is there a causal relationship considering the response? For example you shoot another person with a gun, the cause of the injure or the death is the shot, it's like when we had that discussion about drugs and causation.

Incorrect - I am speaking of a concept that goes way beyond the law but into how an individual acts. With Freedom comes responsibility is a concept that means you have a responsiblity to your fellow man to exercise your Freedoms in a reasonable manner.Then it's deligence. Fair enough. However not all moral obligations to your fellow man are reasonabily translated into laws. Also how is that a menace of overthrowing the state hurts your fellowman? The menace is directed to the state, not the society. And add to that the fact that under an opressive government you might be very well aiding your fellow man, not hurting him.

Anyway Red, I think that, as I said we've axiological disagreements on this one, so let's agree to disagree.:2thumbsup:

[Redleg]

Care to demonstrate your tesis?

Its been demonstrated several times in reality. Just go into a crowded theather or club and yell fire - and see it happens.



Never said that. And you said that "not necessarily". Not all principles of liberalism are respected, many are restricted, many are restricted with out reason, I think this exception made by sedition is not unreasonable looking at it from the point of view of the state, I just don't like it, call it philosophic intuition.

A valid viewpoint



And what about saying the word fire when there's fire? Anyway, that's pointless.... What you've to measure here is what's the probability of a disaster happening when saying such things, and even then there's no crime unless there's an actual disaster or some person injured at least.

Not exactly - there is no crime if the fire is reality - the crime happens when their is no fire.


But what would constitute sedition right now? Is for example the advocation in a TV show "sedition"? The example of theather is also pretty good...

A television show is not reality for the most part - so I would not make a judgement based upon anything on the televsion.



What's sedition following the interpretation of the american courts? By the way you gave even a better example with the Whisky Rebellion, I liked it, it demonstrated your point quite well, but everything changes with time, and I'm talking about an alternative interpretation that might or might not be inferred for the Constitution of your country or the republican or liberalist principles in general that many other countries uphold in general.

Not much time tonight to go in detail on that question - will get back to it later.



So you don't make any difference between advocation of sedition and sedition?

Sedition is sedition.



Yes I were. "It will have the same effect - hate speech is in the preception of the reciever not your intent. The power of the spoken word still exists regardless of your attempt to equate it to "magic."" Is there a causal relationship considering the response? For example you shoot another person with a gun, the cause of the injure or the death is the shot, it's like when we had that discussion about drugs and causation.

The cause of the death is the individual who used the weapon - not the shot.



Then it's deligence. Fair enough. However not all moral obligations to your fellow man are reasonabily translated into laws. Also how is that a menace of overthrowing the state hurts your fellowman? The menace is directed to the state, not the society. And add to that the fact that under an opressive government you might be very well aiding your fellow man, not hurting him.


Correct that is why the concept of Freedom of Speech creates so many dilimia's (SP) for people. It is an ethical concept open to several different interpations. My viewpoint is not necessarily correct - but neither is it necessarily wrong. Rights are tangible ideas for the most part - where the cutoff between what is allowable (SP) free speech and what is not is determined not only by the society but the state. Hince we go back to my opening thought in this discussion.



Anyway Red, I think that, as I said we've axiological disagreements on this one, so let's agree to disagree.:2thumbsup:

If you seperate the matter of sedition and the advocation of sedition from the discussion - you will most likely discover that our viewpoints are the same on Freedom of Speech.

But to give you another examble of why the spoken word has power - the concept of Freedom of Speech demonstrates it very well. Without Free Speech there is no Free Society. That is why the individual who desires to have Freedom of Speech must exercise that Freedom with responsiblity.

[Soulforged]

If you seperate the matter of sedition and the advocation of sedition from the discussion - you will most likely discover that our viewpoints are the same on Freedom of Speech.Let's leave it at that then. :shakehands:

[Rodion Romanovich]

And supports my postion completely now doesn't
No, it supports my position, that freedom of speech hasn't hurt anyone, and that many of those problems would have been possible to avoid if freedom of speech had been allowed.



Laws exist for multiple reasons - there is no morality of wearing a seatbelt
or not wearing a seatbelt.

I think you're failing to understand one of the most important concepts of society building. There's indeed morality in wearing a seatbelt or not. Why do you think people have chosen to make not wearing seatbelt illegal? Are you personally for or against the law to wear seatbelts? If you are for it, try to think of why you support it.



Moral equalivency strikes again I see.

What is it you have against moral equivalency? Do you think different rules should apply to different people? Are you against justice and equal treatment of people before the law?



Correct - but how many of his speeches before hand were disrupted by the government?

I don't see what significance this has to the matter we're discussing. Could you care to explain why this would make you consider it necessary to have a law that would for example allow Hitler to imprison anyone who advocated the overthrowing of his nazi government when he started building concentration camps?



The advocation of the revolt however is not protected speech.

Again you're back at "the constitution should call a leader legitimate even if he starts genocide or change the constitution to remove all democratic rights from it". I don't agree with that point. There are certain lines a leader may not pass if he wishes to remain legitimate (and those lines can be defined as laws in a constitution). Starting genocide is one of the things that make a leader illegitimate. I still fail to understand why you keep stating that the constitution should preserve a leader a right to carry out genocide. There's absolutely no justifiable conditions under which genocide would be needed by any leader unless he's insane.



That is because simply put the ability to state that one advocates the violent overthrow of the established authority does not exist as a right.

So you again say that a Jew, or German for that part, in nazi Germany had no human right to overthrow Hitler when he started building concentration camps and discussing the "final solution"?



Nor is part of the speech protected by the concept of Freedom of Speech.

You're going even further than that - not only would in your eyes a Jew or German in nazi Germany have no right to overthrow Hitler, but he would be a criminal if he merely suggested that Hitler should be overthrown?



Take a look into the different nations and find how many have laws that protect speech that advocates the violent overthrow of the established government.

I bet you will find more laws against sedition then you will find protecting seditious speech.

In countries who haven't changed their constitution since the Medieval period, such laws might exist. But most of those laws are invalidated and in the process to be removed. There's no reason why advocating the overthrow of a maniac who carries out genocide should be considered a crime, and thereby something that a citizen should have bad conscience over wanting to do. Nothing would have given me - and most other people of this world - a better conscience than overthrowing someone like Hitler if someone like that ruled my country. But you state that if I merely suggest that a man like that should be overthrown, I'm a criminal?!!



Notice how many times I state the violent overthrow of the government. The peaceful demonstrations that call for the removal of the government authority is protected speech - the speech that advocates violence is not.

There's no room for peaceful demonstrations the moment the leader withdraws the right to demonstrate peacefully. The moment a leader does that he is illegitimate, because he's acting against the constitution. He's an usurper and must be removed as quickly as possible so that the harm he can do can be limited. And it's the duty of every citizen to do what they can to overthrow him. If one man rises against such a man, then it's the duty of all other liberty-loving people of that country to come to his/her aid. By defining clearly when a crime against constitution is committed, people who fight for freedom will know when the time to revolt comes, and will know when the revolt is legitimate and a matter of defending the state and the people of their country. Such things weren't in the constitutions when for example people like Hitler started removing the democratic rights one by one.



Not avoiding the question at all - the answer was given.

No, it was not given. So I ask you again - if someone advocates death penalty against the monsters that child molestors are, would you consider that illegal? Because your opinion stated everywhere else seems to be that you consider any advocation of violence against anyone should be criminal, and punished. A yes or no to answer that question would suffice.



Not at all - its one and the same.

No, it's not the same principle. Your principle says that it's illegal to state that a genocidal dictator like Hitler should be overthrown. Your principle also says it should be illegal to speak in favor of death penalty against child molestors. My principle (which is the one supported by law in most countries) states that advocating the overthrowing of a genocidal dictator is legal, that advocating the overthrowing of a leader who removes fundamental democratic rights of the constitution is legal, and that speaking in favor of death penalty is legal. But hate speech against races, people of a certan religion, and homosexuals, would be illegal.



Oh boy you tried something and now your doing what you have just accused me of. Nicely done.....not.

You seem to be swaying further and further away from the subject at hand.



If you think I have defended Hilter's Nazi government then you have misread everything written. Attempting to play moral equalivancy games does not apply to a discussion of Freedom of Speech.

So you think there shouldn't be equality and that freedom of speech shouldn't be given to everyone? And I'm not thinking you've defended Hitler's nazi government, but I've repeatedly seen that you're saying that Hitler according to your opinion should have had a legal right to carry out genocide and that anyone saying that he should be overthrown for it would be a criminal. That may imply nazi sympathies, but I'm not jumping conclusions.



The fault of not understanding the statement lies in your reading for something that is not there.
Yes of course, all of us who have read your post have failed at understanding your statement, a statement which was very clearly phrased. :dizzy2:



Looking for Nazi comparisions is playing a moral equalivency that is very telling.
The nazi comparison has become more and more closely related to this debate. It was first presented as a counter-example to clearly show why your theoretical principle wouldn't work in practise. It has become even more closely related to this discussion after you have repeatedly claimed that overthrowing Hitler, or merely stating the opinion that you thought Hitler should be overthrown, should be illegal in your opinion, and that anyone who would protests by advocating his overthrowing, with violence if necessary, would be a criminal in your eyes. Furthermore you're without any real reason strongly opposed my suggestion that it should be a part of constitution of all countries of the world that a leader who starts genocide should be considered illegitimate and legal to overthrow. Do you seriously think any legitimate leader should have the right to legally carry out genocide? Why do you think that genocide could be a means of defending a country, and something that a leader should be by law allowed to do?

[Redleg]

No, it supports my position, that freedom of speech hasn't hurt anyone, and that many of those problems would have been possible to avoid if freedom of speech had been allowed.

Then you have confused yourself about my statements.



I think you're failing to understand one of the most important concepts of society building. There's indeed morality in wearing a seatbelt or not. Why do you think people have chosen to make not wearing seatbelt illegal? Are you personally for or against the law to wear seatbelts? If you are for it, try to think of why you support it.

I don't support it nor do I support it. There is no morality in the seatbelt law. There is no morality in a jaywalking law (ie only crossing the street in the designate spot.) There are laws that are not based upon morality but upon controlling the population. Jaywalking and seatbelt laws are good exambles of both.



What is it you have against moral equivalency? Do you think different rules should apply to different people? Are you against justice and equal treatment of people before the law?

Moral equivelency does not apply to this discussion. Moral equivalency does not present an arguement about equal justice and treatment of people before the law.



I don't see what significance this has to the matter we're discussing. Could you care to explain why this would make you consider it necessary to have a law that would for example allow Hitler to imprison anyone who advocated the overthrowing of his nazi government when he started building concentration camps?


Its shows the weakness of your attempt of moral equivelency - the German Government under the Weimer Republic did not allow Freedom of Speech.

The advocation of violent overthrow of the established government is illegal in most democratic states. There is no legal right to use violence to overthrow the established authority, there often is a moral reason to do so - but that does not make it legal.



Again you're back at "the constitution should call a leader legitimate even if he starts genocide or change the constitution to remove all democratic rights from it". I don't agree with that point. There are certain lines a leader may not pass if he wishes to remain legitimate (and those lines can be defined as laws in a constitution). Starting genocide is one of the things that make a leader illegitimate. I still fail to understand why you keep stating that the constitution should preserve a leader a right to carry out genocide. There's absolutely no justifiable conditions under which genocide would be needed by any leader unless he's insane.

The advocation of violence against the established authority is not a right - find one constitution of any government that states that its an acceptable standard. Your attempting again to place an idea toward my thoughts that does not exist. Your stuck on moral equivelency and the issue your attempting here does not exist. there is a difference between what is a legal right (only one way legal rights exist - they are in the written form of the government's constitution.) and what is morally correct.



So you again say that a Jew, or German for that part, in nazi Germany had no human right to overthrow Hitler when he started building concentration camps and discussing the "final solution"?


A human right is different from the legal rights under the constitution of the established authority. Again attempting moral equilivency that does not apply to my postion. A legal right has a presedence in the constitution of the nation - a moral duty exists in the soul of the human being.



You're going even further than that - not only would in your eyes a Jew or German in nazi Germany have no right to overthrow Hitler, but he would be a criminal if he merely suggested that Hitler should be overthrown?


Tsk tsk you still fail to understand - your still apply moral equilivency to a statement that is not there.

The jew and german would be a criminal under the laws of the established authority. Just like anyone who advocates the violent overthrow of the established authority in any other land.

That does not imply that they are doing the morally incorrect thing.



In countries who haven't changed their constitution since the Medieval period, such laws might exist. But most of those laws are invalidated and in the process to be removed. There's no reason why advocating the overthrow of a maniac who carries out genocide should be considered a crime, and thereby something that a citizen should have bad conscience over wanting to do. Nothing would have given me - and most other people of this world - a better conscience than overthrowing someone like Hitler if someone like that ruled my country. But you state that if I merely suggest that a man like that should be overthrown, I'm a criminal?!!

No I am stating the advocation of the violent overthrow is considered sedition and most states term that illegal.

The United States has one that tells congress to supress acts of sedition and insurgection - a very loosely worded section of the constition open to several types of interpation. There is also the Sedition Law that was passed latter on.

It seems Australia has revamped its Sedition Law.



Sedition
Subdivision 80.2 of the proposed legislation (as amended) specifically criminalises Urging the overthrow of the Constitution or Government:

(1) A person commits an offence if the person urges another person to overthrow by force or violence:
(a) the Constitution; or
(b) the Government of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or
(c) the lawful authority of the Government of the Commonwealth.


Both of these nations did not have sedition laws from the Medevil period.





There's no room for peaceful demonstrations the moment the leader withdraws the right to demonstrate peacefully. The moment a leader does that he is illegitimate, because he's acting against the constitution. He's an usurper and must be removed as quickly as possible so that the harm he can do can be limited. And it's the duty of every citizen to do what they can to overthrow him. If one man rises against such a man, then it's the duty of all other liberty-loving people of that country to come to his/her aid. By defining clearly when a crime against constitution is committed, people who fight for freedom will know when the time to revolt comes, and will know when the revolt is legitimate and a matter of defending the state and the people of their country. Such things weren't in the constitutions when for example people like Hitler started removing the democratic rights one by one.

Now your getting the picture.

A illegimate government needs to be overthrown by the people. However until they are successful they are committing a criminal act against the established authority. The leader has created a constitutional crisis when he removed the right to peaceful demonstration. As states several times before when the government no longer serves the people's best interest the people will revolt.

What you are describing here is a moral obligation of the people - not necessarily a legal right. The advocation of violent overthrow of the established authority is not a legal right. You are only painting the picture of a government that has gone terribily wrong. In your attempt to paint a moral equilevency - you are forgetting that there are always individuals who advocate the violent overthrow of the government to bring forth just a type of dictorship.

I could mention several groups in the United States that would advocate violent overthrow of the established authority so that they could do just the activities that would destroy a nation's society.

Its a fine line - the advocation of violence against the established authority is not a legal right - it only becomes a moral obligation of the people when the government no longer serves the best interests of the people.




No, it was not given. So I ask you again - if someone advocates death penalty against the monsters that child molestors are, would you consider that illegal? Because your opinion stated everywhere else seems to be that you consider any advocation of violence against anyone should be criminal, and punished. A yes or no to answer that question would suffice.


Yes they should if they are violating the law.

The death penelty is within the legal statutes of the justice system in the United States. Moral equilivency does not apply to the different types of discussion.

The advocation of violence - mob rule - against the individual is wrong and sometimes the individuals who commit such an act are arrested and charged.



No, it's not the same principle. Your principle says that it's illegal to state that a genocidal dictator like Hitler should be overthrown. Your principle also says it should be illegal to speak in favor of death penalty against child molestors. My principle (which is the one supported by law in most countries) states that advocating the overthrowing of a genocidal dictator is legal, that advocating the overthrowing of a leader who removes fundamental democratic rights of the constitution is legal, and that speaking in favor of death penalty is legal. But hate speech against races, people of a certan religion, and homosexuals, would be illegal.


Incorrect - the principle is that its completely correct and legal for those who disagree with the government can and should protest against the government and ask for the removal from office through the political system of that leader. ( A point you seem to fail to understand)

Same principle competely - the difference is that you advocate that the calling for the violent overthrow of the government is legal speech, a principle that you have yet to show being an actuality in any state.



You seem to be swaying further and further away from the subject at hand.


A comment on this latter.



So you think there shouldn't be equality and that freedom of speech shouldn't be given to everyone? And I'm not thinking you've defended Hitler's nazi government, but I've repeatedly seen that you're saying that Hitler according to your opinion should have had a legal right to carry out genocide and that anyone saying that he should be overthrown for it would be a criminal. That may imply nazi sympathies, but I'm not jumping conclusions.

You are misreading once again. I did not state any such thing. Look at your above statement about swaying futher and further away for the topic.



Yes of course, all of us who have read your post have failed at understanding your statement, a statement which was very clearly phrased. :dizzy2:


Yes indeed it was - the advocation of the violent overthrow of the government. Pretty darn clear when you read all the words.




The nazi comparison has become more and more closely related to this debate. It was first presented as a counter-example to clearly show why your theoretical principle wouldn't work in practise. It has become even more closely related to this discussion after you have repeatedly claimed that overthrowing Hitler, or merely stating the opinion that you thought Hitler should be overthrown, should be illegal in your opinion, and that anyone who would protests by advocating his overthrowing, with violence if necessary, would be a criminal in your eyes. Furthermore you're without any real reason strongly opposed my suggestion that it should be a part of constitution of all countries of the world that a leader who starts genocide should be considered illegitimate and legal to overthrow. Do you seriously think any legitimate leader should have the right to legally carry out genocide? Why do you think that genocide could be a means of defending a country, and something that a leader should be by law allowed to do?

Again you have misread and most likely your attempting to raise an emotional response form me.

Legal rights under the consitution and the moral obligation of a human being are often two different things.

The bold statement is incorrect - but nice try. If this is the course you wish to take in the discussion then there is no futher need to continue. I clearly stated that there should not be included in the constitution the legal right to use violence to remove the established authority - however that is nothing along the lines of the statement you just tried here.

A legal right to commit violence against the state does not exist. A moral obligation to remove by any means a leader you has become illegimate does exist, but one must understand that until it is accomplished that they are violating the law of the state.

A legal right to advocate violence against the state also allows groups like the Aryan Nations to use violence to remove the established authority.

[Rodion Romanovich]

It seems Australia has revamped its Sedition Law.

[...]

Sedition
Subdivision 80.2 of the proposed legislation (as amended) specifically criminalises Urging the overthrow of the Constitution or Government:

(1) A person commits an offence if the person urges another person to overthrow by force or violence:
(a) the Constitution; or
(b) the Government of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or
(c) the lawful authority of the Government of the Commonwealth.


These offenses mean:
a. the person goes against the constitution. If a leader removes democratic rights he's illegitimate and by law allowed to overthrow.
b. the government of the Commonwealth, that means as long as the government acts in the interest of the common good. If it begins genocide it's no longer a legitimate government, and juridically allowed to overthrow
c. if you say that the courts no longer have a right to prosecute people. Again, this assumes the leader hasn't tried to remove the democratic rights or has gone against the common good, in which case he has already become legitimate to overthrow.

This law is just confirming exactly what I've been saying



Now your getting the picture.

A illegimate government needs to be overthrown by the people. However until they are successful they are committing a criminal act against the established authority. The leader has created a constitutional crisis when he removed the right to peaceful demonstration. As states several times before when the government no longer serves the people's best interest the people will revolt.

If he goes against the constitution and removes the democratic rights he becomes illegitimate. So it's no just morally, but also legally justified, to overthrow him in that situation. That's what the current law you quoted above says, for instance. As for what the law should ideally be saying - it's exactly that - a leader who goes against the constitution and removes the democratic rights, starts genocide or similar, becomes illegitimate and legally allowed to be overthrown, because he's no longer the established authority, but an usurper.

But for some reason you keep saying that you don't think it should be legal to overthrow someone who goes against the constitution by removing democratic rights or starting genocide. That goes against the opinion of most democratic countries today.



The advocation of violent overthrow of the established authority is not a legal right.

It's no longer established authority or a legimitate government if it removes democratic rights, because in order to do so it must go against the constitution. Starting genocide is also against the constitution and makes the government illegitimate.



You are only painting the picture of a government that has gone terribily wrong. In your attempt to paint a moral equilevency - you are forgetting that there are always individuals who advocate the violent overthrow of the government to bring forth just a type of dictorship.

Can you mention a single case were someone being allowed to speak in favor of overthrowing a government was crucial to his success in overthrowing it? Revolts don't gain massive popular support unless they're against a corrupt regime. Furthermore, if people are allowed to speak in favor of overthrowing a regime, it'll be clear at an early stage when a government is exceeding it's authority, so that it may be given a chance to correct itself. The government is not in place to oppress and control the people, but to protect the people and grant them their rights, safety and if it can - prosperity, living standards and justice. There's no "king by the grace of God". The leader is in place because the people desires, and only for as long as they desire. If the leader runs amok and starts genocide or removes democratic rights, people may advocate the overthrowing of him to give him a chance to leave his position peacefully and alive. The alternative is to be silent for a long time and then backstab him without forewarning. A leader should be thankful for the honor and justice that lies within free speech criticising his regime, and the valuable information it gives him that makes him able to improve himself. If you're not allowed to discuss when it becomes necessary to overthrow a leader that's gradually turning more and more cracy, how can the leader see the difference between the usual complaints about high taxes, and the extreme discontent against a leader going nuts?



I could mention several groups in the United States that would advocate violent overthrow of the established authority so that they could do just the activities that would destroy a nation's society.

Mention one group that would succeed in overthrowing the government just because they were alloeed freedom of speech, but would fail otherwise.



Its a fine line - the advocation of violence against the established authority [...] becomes a moral obligation of the people when the government no longer serves the best interests of the people.

Finally you're getting a hang of some of the principles.



Yes they should if they are violating the law.

The death penelty is within the legal statutes of the justice system in the United States. Moral equilivency does not apply to the different types of discussion.

The advocation of violence - mob rule - against the individual is wrong and sometimes the individuals who commit such an act are arrested and charged.

Considering how your theoretical principle was phrased, this moderate and sensible view comes as a pleasant surprise. You do understand that your initial statement was so vague and inprecise that the interpretation I made is the one that lies closest at hand? You must realize the importance of exact phrasings and definitions when making laws - it's both a matter of making the judges able to interpret the law as it was intended, and a matter of allowing for an as strict interpretation as possible of the text so that all may be treated equally and objectively rather than subjectively and arbitrarily by the law.


the principle is that its completely correct and legal for those who disagree with the government can and should protest against the government and ask for the removal from office through the political system of that leader

This is what I've said. But what I've also said, that you keep saying is wrong, is that the moment the leader breaks the constitutional laws by removing democratic rights or carrying out genocide or similar, the leader becomes an illegitimate usurper and should IMO be overthrown. The law example you posted also confirms that it's not sedition to advocate the overthrowing of a leader that has broken the constitutional law by carrying out genocide. To go back to the example:
- I'm stating that assuming Weimar Republic had had my constitution, the moment Hitler removed the democratic rights and carried out genocide he became illegitimate, thus it then became legal to overthrow him.
- Your opinion is that if Hitler breaks the constitutional law by removing democratic rights and carrying out genocide, a good constitution should still make him legitimate leader after that, and that law should be written so that anyone who advocated the overthrowing of Hitler should be considered a criminal and punished.



I clearly stated that there should not be included in the constitution the legal right to use violence to remove the established authority - however that is nothing along the lines of the statement you just tried here.

A legal right to commit violence against the state does not exist.

I'll state my opinion again: if a leader passes a certain line by removing democratic rights that are part of the constitutional law, or starts genocide, that leader is no longer legitimate, and it's both legally and morally allowed to both overthrow him, and advocate the overthrowing of him, according to constitutional law. A constitutional law of that kind only makes it legal to overthrow a leader that is already nuts, like Hitler, but doesn't allow the overthrowing of a normal leader. The only conditions under which a leader is legal to overthrow, is when he's broken the constitutional law. To also allow people to speak in favor of overthrowing the leader makes it possible for the leader that has broken the constitutional law to resign peacefully, rather than forcing the people to kill him to get rid of him. That's a law that is in the interest of both the leaders and the people.

Now your opinion is that overthrowing a mad leader like Hitler should be punished, and that anyone who merely said "I think Hitler should be overthrown", should be considered a criminal and punished according to the system you're supporting, a system which also happens to go against the common ideas of most modern constitutions of democratic countries.

Please tell me what it is you consider so dangerous about a legal right to overthrow a leader that has become a genocidal dictator and has broken the constitutional law? Why do you think leaders should be legally allowed to stay in office even if they've broken the constitutional law, for example by starting genocide? Do you seriously think genocide would ever serve the interests of your nation?

[Lord Winter]

A legal right to commit violence against the state does not exist.

I quote from addmendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

and from the declaration of independence

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

Saying that the people have no right to abolish there governments in a last resort to restore freedom is going against almost all the ideas our government was founded on. Just because it is not listed in the constitution does not mean that the people have no right to it.

[Redleg]

These offenses mean:
a. the person goes against the constitution. If a leader removes democratic rights he's illegitimate and by law allowed to overthrow.
b. the government of the Commonwealth, that means as long as the government acts in the interest of the common good. If it begins genocide it's no longer a legitimate government, and juridically allowed to overthrow
c. if you say that the courts no longer have a right to prosecute people. Again, this assumes the leader hasn't tried to remove the democratic rights or has gone against the common good, in which case he has already become legitimate to overthrow.

This law is just confirming exactly what I've been saying


Just like it confirms what I have stated. You might want to review the whole thing and what the Australian press has stated about it.




If he goes against the constitution and removes the democratic rights he becomes illegitimate. So it's no just morally, but also legally justified, to overthrow him in that situation. That's what the current law you quoted above says, for instance. As for what the law should ideally be saying - it's exactly that - a leader who goes against the constitution and removes the democratic rights, starts genocide or similar, becomes illegitimate and legally allowed to be overthrown, because he's no longer the established authority, but an usurper.


Your getting close - the legality however only works if the rebellion against the established authority is accomplished.



But for some reason you keep saying that you don't think it should be legal to overthrow someone who goes against the constitution by removing democratic rights or starting genocide. That goes against the opinion of most democratic countries today.

Again your not paying attention - to what was written. The legality exists with the established authority. Until its accomplished all you have is a moral duty.



It's no longer established authority or a legimitate government if it removes democratic rights, because in order to do so it must go against the constitution. Starting genocide is also against the constitution and makes the government illegitimate.

That was not your initial arguement - nor was it mine - the legality of your actions is based upon the government. The moral duty is something else. You again attempting a moral equilevency that I refuse to play into.



Can you mention a single case were someone being allowed to speak in favor of overthrowing a government was crucial to his success in overthrowing it? Revolts don't gain massive popular support unless they're against a corrupt regime. Furthermore, if people are allowed to speak in favor of overthrowing a regime, it'll be clear at an early stage when a government is exceeding it's authority, so that it may be given a chance to correct itself. The government is not in place to oppress and control the people, but to protect the people and grant them their rights, safety and if it can - prosperity, living standards and justice. There's no "king by the grace of God". The leader is in place because the people desires, and only for as long as they desire. If the leader runs amok and starts genocide or removes democratic rights, people may advocate the overthrowing of him to give him a chance to leave his position peacefully and alive. The alternative is to be silent for a long time and then backstab him without forewarning. A leader should be thankful for the honor and justice that lies within free speech criticising his regime, and the valuable information it gives him that makes him able to improve himself. If you're not allowed to discuss when it becomes necessary to overthrow a leader that's gradually turning more and more cracy, how can the leader see the difference between the usual complaints about high taxes, and the extreme discontent against a leader going nuts?

Maybe you should ask yourself does any nation allow the advocation of violence to overthrow the established government?

Protests and demonstrations - peaceful dissent - gives the leadership the idea that his policies are not in line with the interests of the people.





Mention one group that would succeed in overthrowing the government just because they were alloeed freedom of speech, but would fail otherwise.


Maybe you should mention one group of dissents that were able to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority. Gandi advocated the overthrow of the British in India - not through violence but through peaceful protest.



Finally you're getting a hang of some of the principles.

I had it all along - the statement is consistent with what I have been stating all along.

Here read it again - Its a fine line - the advocation of violence against the established authority is not a legal right - it only becomes a moral obligation of the people when the government no longer serves the best interests of the people.

Notice carefully the words used - not a legal right - a moral obligation. I seperate legal from moral when it concerns rights and freedoms. Not all states have the same legal rights - but all men have the same moral obligations.





Considering how your theoretical principle was phrased, this moderate and sensible view comes as a pleasant surprise. You do understand that your initial statement was so vague and inprecise that the interpretation I made is the one that lies closest at hand? You must realize the importance of exact phrasings and definitions when making laws - it's both a matter of making the judges able to interpret the law as it was intended, and a matter of allowing for an as strict interpretation as possible of the text so that all may be treated equally and objectively rather than subjectively and arbitrarily by the law.

Maybe its not my language but your understanding of what I am saying. The terms I used make perfect sense to me. certain clear cut terms were used - such as the violent overthrow being one of them.



This is what I've said. But what I've also said, that you keep saying is wrong, is that the moment the leader breaks the constitutional laws by removing democratic rights or carrying out genocide or similar, the leader becomes an illegitimate usurper and should IMO be overthrown. The law example you posted also confirms that it's not sedition to advocate the overthrowing of a leader that has broken the constitutional law by carrying out genocide. To go back to the example:

I say it wrong - a matter of opinion not fact. Again show where one national law advocates the violent overthrow of the established authority.



- I'm stating that assuming Weimar Republic had had my constitution, the moment Hitler removed the democratic rights and carried out genocide he became illegitimate, thus it then became legal to overthrow him.

The Weimer Republic did not have your constitution - it had its own. This is why I don't engage in moral equilevency.



- Your opinion is that if Hitler breaks the constitutional law by removing democratic rights and carrying out genocide, a good constitution should still make him legitimate leader after that, and that law should be written so that anyone who advocated the overthrowing of Hitler should be considered a criminal and punished.

My view is that the people do not have a legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority. They have the legal right to protest, advocate peaceful means of removing the authority, and to speak their minds about that leaders actions.


Once the established authority no longer serves the best interest of the people - the people have the moral obligation to remove him from office. The advocation of violence puts them against the established authority. In this case the legal issue is second to the moral issue. The action of advocating violence against the established authority breaks the legal code - but not the moral obligation of the people.

Attempting to place moral equilevency has caused you to misinterpate and spin my statement to something you wish to believe they mean.


[quot]
I'll state my opinion again: if a leader passes a certain line by removing democratic rights that are part of the constitutional law, or starts genocide, that leader is no longer legitimate, and it's both legally and morally allowed to both overthrow him, and advocate the overthrowing of him, according to constitutional law. A constitutional law of that kind only makes it legal to overthrow a leader that is already nuts, like Hitler, but doesn't allow the overthrowing of a normal leader. The only conditions under which a leader is legal to overthrow, is when he's broken the constitutional law. To also allow people to speak in favor of overthrowing the leader makes it possible for the leader that has broken the constitutional law to resign peacefully, rather than forcing the people to kill him to get rid of him. That's a law that is in the interest of both the leaders and the people.[/quote]

Again advocation of the violent overthrow of the established authority is not a legal right - nor is the actual act. It can and often is a moral obligation but its not a legal right.





Now your opinion is that overthrowing a mad leader like Hitler should be punished, and that anyone who merely said "I think Hitler should be overthrown", should be considered a criminal and punished according to the system you're supporting, a system which also happens to go against the common ideas of most modern constitutions of democratic countries.

You still don't have an idea what my opinion is. Legally if the plotting of the overthrow of the established authority and the conduct of the established authority is against the law. It can be the moral correct thing to do - but guess what - you still haven't shown a constitution that allows the violent overthrow of the government. I know of two that use the words that its against the legal code.

Again the Austrialian law




Seditious Intention
The definition of "seditious intention" originally in Section 24A has become (as amended):

An intention to use force or violence to effect any of the following purposes:

(a) to bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt;
(b) to urge disaffection against the following:
(i) the Constitution;
(ii) the Government of the Commonwealth;
(iii) either House of the Parliament;
(c) to urge another person to attempt, otherwise than by lawful means, to procure a change to any matter established by law in the Commonwealth;
(d) to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so as to threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.
[edit]
Sedition
Subdivision 80.2 of the proposed legislation (as amended) specifically criminalises Urging the overthrow of the Constitution or Government:

(1) A person commits an offence if the person urges another person to overthrow by force or violence:
(a) the Constitution; or
(b) the Government of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or
(c) the lawful authority of the Government of the Commonwealth.
Similarly, it introduces the offence of [urging] another person to interfere by force or violence with lawful processes for an election of a member or members of a House of the Parliament, and Urging violence within the community:

(a) the person urges a group or groups (whether distinguished by race, religion, nationality or political opinion) to use force or violence against another group or other groups (as so distinguished); and
(b) the use of the force or violence would threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.
Additionally, it is now specifically illegal to [urge] a person to assist the enemy:

(a) the person urges another person to engage in conduct; and
(b) the first-mentioned person intends the conduct to assist, by any means whatever, an organisation or country; and
(c) the organisation or country is:
(i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared; and
(ii) specified by Proclamation made for the purpose of paragraph 80.1(1)(e) to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth.
or to [urge] a person to assist those engaged in armed hostilities:

(a) the person urges another person to engage in conduct; and
(b) the first-mentioned person intends the conduct to assist, by any means whatever, an organisation or country; and
(c) the organisation or country is engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force.
except where such urgings are by way of, or for the purposes of, the provision of aid of a humanitarian nature.

These new crimes are all punishable by Imprisonment for 7 years.





Please tell me what it is you consider so dangerous about a legal right to overthrow a leader that has become a genocidal dictator and has broken the constitutional law? Why do you think leaders should be legally allowed to stay in office even if they've broken the constitutional law, for example by starting genocide? Do you seriously think genocide would ever serve the interests of your nation?

There is no legal right to overthrow the established authority through violence. I will continue to state this until you provide a constitution or a law that expressily states that its a legal right to use violence to overthrow the established authority.

Now what is so dangerous - its advocation of violence - a fine line is crossed when the legal code allows for the use of violence. The moral obligation of the people to remove a dangerous leader requires them to break the legal code of the established authority. Its not an action that should be taken lightly. If your willing to pay the ulitmate price to fullfil your moral obligation to remove a dictator or dangerous government - you do not need a legal right to do so. A legal right allows for abuse by groups that will and do use violence to get what they want. Providing a legal right to advocate the destruction of the state - provides just that recourse.

[Redleg]

I quote from addmendment IX


and from the declaration of independence


Saying that the people have no right to abolish there governments in a last resort to restore freedom is going against almost all the ideas our government was founded on. Just because it is not listed in the constitution does not mean that the people have no right to it.

Read again - you have no legal right to use violence to abolish the government. Its know where in the Constitution.

Now according to the founding fathers of the United States you have a moral right to do so. This is what they were speaking of. These men so firmily believed in this principle that they were willing to sacrifice their lives, their families, everything they held dear to make it so. But they also realize tha they did not have a legal right to do so.



Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

They were speaking of the moral duty of man - not the legal right to advocate violence.

It is interesting to note that these same men also advocated the Article section of the constitution alreadly mentioned - that the Congress will raise the militia to supress insurgection, rebellion and sedition.

And the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Just like it confirms what I have stated.

So you're admitting that what I said was correct?


You might want to review the whole thing and what the Australian press has stated about it.

Feel free to post any press comments you consider relevant to the discussion.



Your getting close - the legality however only works if the rebellion against the established authority is accomplished.

No, that was the entire point, which is also confirmed by the IX amendment: if the government goes against the constitution the government is illegal and a revolt overthrowing it is legal. For example - if the government commits genocide or removes the democratic rights of the citizens and creates dictatorship.



Again your not paying attention - to what was written. The legality exists with the established authority. Until its accomplished all you have is a moral duty.

No, according to the IX amendment you have a legal right to revolt against an usurper government. Not only that are you denying, but you're also saying it should be forbidden to suggest in speech that an urusper government should be overthrown (which is what this thread is about - freedom of speech). As for countries with constitution that doesn't state things like this, that's both sad and a threat to their democracy.



That was not your initial arguement - nor was it mine

It was my initial opinion and is the opinion I'm still holding.



the legality of your actions is based upon the government

An usurper government may call you a criminal if you overthrow it, but if the constitution says it's legal to overthrow an usurper government then it's legal from a formal viewpoint. A claim that it's illegal must be a lie.



The moral duty is something else. You again attempting a moral equilevency that I refuse to play into.

Moral equivalency and equal moral and legal rights for everyone is a general principle that I again must ask why you oppose?



Maybe you should mention one group of dissents that were able to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority. Gandi advocated the overthrow of the British in India - not through violence but through peaceful protest.

Gandhi was lucky in that he didn't need violence to succeed, because the British authority there didn't really consider it worth holding India by massmurders and genocidal terror. An usurper government of genocidal maniacs such as the nazi government must be legal to overthrow by violence if necessary, according to constitutional law. Any government which breaks constitutional law is illegitimate, and is thus legal to overthrow. But you're going as far as to say that it's illegal to not only overthrow such a government, but also illegal to merely state your opinion that that government should be overthrown, and you state that people who would state their opinion that someone like Hitler should be overthrown should be punished for stating that opinion.



I seperate legal from moral when it concerns rights and freedoms

You're on dangerous ground when you fail to understand how law is related to morality. Again: law is a formalized version of our morality, our rules on what is right and wrong to do. It's supposed to be carefully phrased with exact definition to allow for only one interpretation so that all will be equal before the law. Morality is strongly related to law, and the closer the two can be, the better. That is the very aim of law.



Not all states have the same legal rights - but all men have the same moral obligations.

Differences in law comes from the differences in moral ideas. There's no single ultimate moral truth which holds globally, but local differences in details (and sometimes also in big things) exist.



Maybe its not my language but your understanding of what I am saying. The terms I used make perfect sense to me. certain clear cut terms were used - such as the violent overthrow being one of them.

If you state that "all advocating violence against another should be illegal and punished by law", that means that for example that your principle would apply also to cases like:
- saying that a mass-murderer dictator like Hitler should be overthrown should in your opinion be a crime that should give a punishment
- saying that someone should have death penalty would in your opinion be a crime that should give a punishment

Is it really that difficult for you to see how that way too generalized and vague phrasing automatically implies that you also hold the opinions of the two points above?



Again show where one national law advocates the violent overthrow of the established authority.

Maybe you should read the IX amendment of the constitution of the United States of America.



The Weimer Republic did not have your constitution - it had its own. This is why I don't engage in moral equilevency.

If you can't even reason about all possible hypothetical cases, then your attempt to make a general statement about how laws should isn't to be taken seriously. When making an attempt at making a general statement it's important to immediately seek the most extreme counter-examples that could exist. Maybe you've heard of contra-positive proof, which is a central part of logic? If you say x holds for all cases of y, and I find just one counter-example y for which x doesn't hold, then I've counter-proved your statement that x holds for all y. When generalizations and attempts of formulating a legal definition are made, it's essential to go through all practical pre-existing and possible future examples and see how the principle we formulate would work out in practise. Your principle wouldn't work, unless you support the two opinions I mentioned above:
- saying that a mass-murderer dictator like Hitler should be overthrown should in your opinion be a crime that should give a punishment
- saying that someone should have death penalty would in your opinion be a crime that in your opinion should give a punishment

If you do hold those opinions, then your attempt to find a general legal statement defining what crime is according to your moral values was successful, but then I also know that you have moral values which I don't share. If you don't hold those opinions you've failed miserably in your attempt to find a general statement that precisely defines and summarizes your opinion of freedom of speech



Attempting to place moral equilevency has caused you to misinterpate and spin my statement to something you wish to believe they mean.

Again I must remind you that when making a general statement on the theoretical level you must be aware of what consequences it implies on the practical level. See the comment I made above.



You still don't have an idea what my opinion is. Legally if the plotting of the overthrow of the established authority and the conduct of the established authority is against the law. It can be the moral correct thing to do

You're confusing the right to state an opinion that a government should be overthrown, and the right to actually overthrow it. In this discussion of freedom of speech I've repeatedly tried to explain to you that punishing someone for having the opinion that the government should be overthrown would be a crime against democratic principles. It's the very foundation of the freedom of speech principle.



- but guess what - you still haven't shown a constitution that allows the violent overthrow of the government

The Australian law and the IX Amendment of USA.



There is no legal right to overthrow the established authority through violence. I will continue to state this until you provide a constitution or a law that expressily states that its a legal right to use violence to overthrow the established authority.

Now what is so dangerous - its advocation of violence - a fine line is crossed when the legal code allows for the use of violence.

Are you saying that usage of violence, and the right to merely stating your opinion that a genocidal dictator government like Hitler's nazi government should be overthrown, are the same things?



The moral obligation of the people to remove a dangerous leader requires them to break the legal code of the established authority. Its not an action that should be taken lightly. If your willing to pay the ulitmate price to fullfil your moral obligation to remove a dictator or dangerous government - you do not need a legal right to do so. A legal right allows for abuse by groups that will and do use violence to get what they want. Providing a legal right to advocate the destruction of the state - provides just that recourse.
This statement means that if a group of freedom fighters managed to overthrow a leader like Hitler, they would in your opinion have committed a crime, and should in your opinion be locked up in jail after successfully saving their people.

[Redleg]

So you're admitting that what I said was correct?

I never said you were not correct - I am saying that the principle I hold is the same as what this law states.





Feel free to post any press comments you consider relevant to the discussion.


Not at all - the law passed with concerns that that law would suppress Freedom of Speech - it doesn't suppress because it only makes the advocation of violence a criminal act.




No, that was the entire point, which is also confirmed by the IX amendment: if the government goes against the constitution the government is illegal and a revolt overthrowing it is legal. For example - if the government commits genocide or removes the democratic rights of the citizens and creates dictatorship.


The ammendment does not superced the body of the constitution. Advocation of the violent overthrow of the government is not a legal right.




No, according to the IX amendment you have a legal right to revolt against an usurper government. Not only that are you denying, but you're also saying it should be forbidden to suggest in speech that an urusper government should be overthrown (which is what this thread is about - freedom of speech).

Again read the IX ammendment. it does not provide for the ability of the citizenship to advocate violence. Notice what the body of the Constitution states about sedition. The national authority has stated that sedition will be supressed by congress - which means that the government has alreadly made a statement concerning that.



It was my initial opinion and is the opinion I'm still holding.

Fine - your sticking with the moral equalivency.



An usurper government may call you a criminal if you overthrow it, but if the constitution says it's legal to overthrow an usurper government then it's legal from a formal viewpoint. A claim that it's illegal must be a lie.

Not at all - the established authority is the legal authority. Until the government is overthrown - the legal authority rests with him. The people must gain it back. That is the moral duty - the legal right does not exist.



Moral equivalency and equal moral and legal rights for everyone is a general principle that I again must ask why you oppose?

Moral equivalency does not apply in the context you are attempting to use it.



Gandhi was lucky in that he didn't need violence to succeed, because the British authority there didn't really consider it worth holding India by massmurders and genocidal terror. An usurper government of genocidal maniacs such as the nazi government must be legal to overthrow by violence if necessary, according to constitutional law. Any government which breaks constitutional law is illegitimate, and is thus legal to overthrow. But you're going as far as to say that it's illegal to not only overthrow such a government, but also illegal to merely state your opinion that that government should be overthrown, and you state that people who would state their opinion that someone like Hitler should be overthrown should be punished for stating that opinion.

Gandi was far from lucky. It seems that your more guilty of something then I myself is.

Try reading again - I am saying the government will call it illegal because they are the established authority. Legality remains with the established authority until it is abolished by the people. The advocation of violence goes against the principles of legality. It seems your stuck on Hilter but refusing to acknowledge the principle as it applies to Gandi. This is the problem with Moral Equalivency.



You're on dangerous ground when you fail to understand how law is related to morality. Again: law is a formalized version of our morality, our rules on what is right and wrong to do. It's supposed to be carefully phrased with exact definition to allow for only one interpretation so that all will be equal before the law. Morality is strongly related to law, and the closer the two can be, the better. That is the very aim of law.

The moral right for the people to overthrow the establish authority is not a legal right. The dangerous ground exists when the legal authority states that it is okay to advocate violence. Again laws are and do exist to maintain control over the population nott to enforce morality. If morality was behind all laws - the abortion rights issue would not exist - because their would be no abortions. The deah penality would not exist because it would violate a moral law.



Differences in law comes from the differences in moral ideas. There's no single ultimate moral truth which holds globally, but local differences in details (and sometimes also in big things) exist.


Correct



If you state that "all advocating violence against another should be illegal and punished by law", that means that for example that your principle would apply also to cases like:
- saying that a mass-murderer dictator like Hitler should be overthrown should in your opinion be a crime that should give a punishment
- saying that someone should have death penalty would in your opinion be a crime that should give a punishment

Your again attempting to apply moral equilivency when none exists - the legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority exists in no constitution that I have read. The moral obligation to remove a dictator exists only in man - not the law.



Is it really that difficult for you to see how that way too generalized and vague phrasing automatically implies that you also hold the opinions of the two points above?

Not at all - the statement of violent overthrow is pretty darn specific to me.

Now the right to protest against the government exists in law. The right to call for the removal of a government official exists in law. The right to advocate or use violence to overthrow the government does not exist in law. It exists when it is a morally correct action. However one must be willing to go against the law to do so.




Maybe you should read the IX amendment of the constitution of the United States of America.


Maybe you should read both the constitution and the ammendment. The ammendment does not supercede the constitution unless it is written expressily for the purpose of the article and section. Ammendment IX does not remove the power from congress to supress sedition, rebellion, and insurgection.



If you can't even reason about all possible hypothetical cases, then your attempt to make a general statement about how laws should isn't to be taken seriously. When making an attempt at making a general statement it's important to immediately seek the most extreme counter-examples that could exist. Maybe you've heard of contra-positive proof, which is a central part of logic? If you say x holds for all cases of y, and I find just one counter-example y for which x doesn't hold, then I've counter-proved your statement that x holds for all y. When generalizations and attempts of formulating a legal definition are made, it's essential to go through all practical pre-existing and possible future examples and see how the principle we formulate would work out in practise. Your principle wouldn't work, unless you support the two opinions I mentioned above:

I suggest you take your own advice - you use Hilter - I use Gandi. You discount Gandi. It seems your more guilty of this then I.



- saying that a mass-murderer dictator like Hitler should be overthrown should in your opinion be a crime that should give a punishment
- saying that someone should have death penalty would in your opinion be a crime that in your opinion should give a punishment

Moral equilivency does not apply.



If you do hold those opinions, then your attempt to find a general legal statement defining what crime is according to your moral values was successful, but then I also know that you have moral values which I don't share. If you don't hold those opinions you've failed miserably in your attempt to find a general statement that precisely defines and summarizes your opinion of freedom of speech

Not at all - I fully understand my opinion. You don't like it because I do not advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority as an inherient right of Freedom of Speech. Frankly you have not shown any document that shows that someone has a legal right to advocate violence of any type.



Again I must remind you that when making a general statement on the theoretical level you must be aware of what consequences it implies on the practical level. See the comment I made above.


You might want to examine that one yourself - given that you discount the examble of the peaceful overthrow of the established authority by Gandi.



You're confusing the right to state an opinion that a government should be overthrown, and the right to actually overthrow it. In this discussion of freedom of speech I've repeatedly tried to explain to you that punishing someone for having the opinion that the government should be overthrown would be a crime against democratic principles. It's the very foundation of the freedom of speech principle.


And again you have confused yourself - the advocation of the violent overthrow of the government is the wording used. The opinion that the government should be overthrown by peaceful protest, by individuals calling for the removal of that authority is protected speech - something I have stated several times. The advocation of violent overthrow of the established authority is not protected speech. Again refer to the examble of Gandi.




The Australian law and the IX Amendment of USA.

Then I suggest you read what it states. Neither gives an individual the legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the state.



Are you saying that usage of violence, and the right to merely stating your opinion that a genocidal dictator government like Hitler's nazi government should be overthrown, are the same things?

The advocation of violent overthrowing of the established authority has been shown by many nations not to be a legal right.

The advocation of the peaceful overthrowing of the established authority through peaceful dissent and protest is protected speech.

So no they are not the same thing. And I have been consistent with that approach.



This statement means that if a group of freedom fighters managed to overthrow a leader like Hitler, they would in your opinion have committed a crime, and should in your opinion be locked up in jail after successfully saving their people.

Nope that is what your interpation - the statement means exactly what it states.

[Lord Winter]

Read again - you have no legal right to use violence to abolish the government. Its know where in the Constitution.

Now according to the founding fathers of the United States you have a moral right to do so. This is what they were speaking of. These men so firmily believed in this principle that they were willing to sacrifice their lives, their families, everything they held dear to make it so. But they also realize tha they did not have a legal right to do so.

U.S. law is based on the idea of natural rights. The Bill of rights was included so a strong federal government could not take these rights away. The founders believed that these natural rights were above the law of nations and were guaranteed to all men no matter class. Among these rights the founders thought that one of them was a right to over throw a dictatorship. However they also argued that it wasn't a right to over throw a government that you disagreed in.




They were speaking of the moral duty of man - not the legal right to advocate violence.

Advocating violence is different from a majority advocating an overthrow of a government that violates there natural rights.


It is interesting to note that these same men also advocated the Article section of the constitution already mentioned - that the Congress will raise the militia to supress insurgection, rebellion and sedition.

Should the government under the U.S. constitution be able to arrest someone for saying that a government should be overthrown but taking no action.

In my option that seems like a form of censure ship.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I never said you were not correct - I am saying that the principle I hold is the same as what this law states.

So you're claiming the law says I'm right at the same time it says you're right, while our opinions at the same time are contradictionary to each other? :dizzy2:



The ammendment does not superced the body of the constitution. Advocation of the violent overthrow of the government is not a legal right.

I think you should read the IX Ammendment again.



Fine - your sticking with the moral equalivency.

And you're still insisting that different people should be judged by different moral principles, contrary to the principle of equality before the law that is central to democracy.



Not at all - the established authority is the legal authority. Until the government is overthrown - the legal authority rests with him. The people must gain it back. That is the moral duty - the legal right does not exist.

You should read some of the 18th century philosophers, which lay the foundation for modern democracy. Their works were not perfect, because they lived in totalitarian states and thus had difficulties predicting the exact practical outcome of their statements, because their suggestions were so radical compared to the "king by the grace of God"-constutitions used at that time. But one principle which was very insightful - the courts should have the legal authority, the people should elect the government, and the government should only be allowed to pass new laws - but not control individual instances of law (the only exception being to give amnesty to sentenced criminals, but not imprison someone that the courts don't consider guilty) - that's a right that belongs to the court. The idea was that the court and the government shouldn't be a single body, so that not all eggs would be put in one basket. The system isn't foolproof, but it's what we've built the modern attempts at democracy on - court and government shouldn't be one.



Moral equivalency does not apply in the context you are attempting to use it.

Equality before the law and by moral judgement is a necessity in all cases. A morality or law which treats different people differently can't be called justice.



Gandi was far from lucky. It seems that your more guilty of something then I myself is.

Indeed - Gandi was far from lucky on the personal level. Not all rebels want to become martyrs for their cause. In fact, so many people in history have been killed for their cause because they wanted to negotiate with the leader, or only try to achieve own independence rather than crush the oppressors who removed their freedom. Gandi was politically lucky in that he succeeded in his political objectives. The non-violence approach worked from a political point of view. But perhaps from a personal point of view, a fighter for freedom and justice like him should have overthrown the oppressive government and executed it's leaders, rather than try to bring them to their senses. Everything oppressive leaders do - like forbidding freedom of speech - makes it more and more necessary for freedom fighters to use violence directly without forewarning rather than first trying to allow the leaders to leave their posts peacefully when they're starting things like oppression and genocide. The problem is - when the people start using violence directly, as they're forced to when freedom of speech is forbidden, the leaders are never given any chance to leave their positions in peace, and get scared. By the time they realize the hatred among the people, it's gone so far that almost everyone has a personal reason to murder the leader. He can't leave power then, because if he does he will get killed. The only thing that can save him then is to kill all opposition, make examples, and keep doing so until he either dies of old age or - more commonly - his killing of opposition has made more and more people hate him personally so that a massive enough rebellion can be launched and successfully overthrow - and kill - him. The leader doesn't like to kill opposition - he does it from desire of saving himself, neither does the opposition like to be killed. Allowing freedom of speech to critisise the government in any way as early as possible is something that benefits both leaders and the people.



I am saying the government will call it illegal because they are the established authority.

Yes, that's what I'm saying too. But you're also saying that you're opposing having a constitutional law that would call a leader illegitimate if he carries out genocide or removes democratic rights. You're also saying that merely speaking in favor of overthrowing a leader who carries out genocide and removes democratic rights like Hitler did, should in your opinion be a criminal act according to constitution, and in your opinion be punished according to law.

I'm saying too that a government like Hitler's government will probably try to call someone a criminal if he protests against the regime. But calling someone like that a criminal would go against the constitutional law, and thus make the leader illegitimate and legally and morally justified to overthrow. No leader can serve his country better by removing democratic rights and start genocide. Such tools - genocide and dictatorship - do not need to be reservwed as a right of a leader, because only a mad leader would ever feel a desire to use them, while a sensible leader would never use them.


This is the problem with Moral Equalivency.
Praetereo censeo Carthaginem esse delendam...
Why do you keep saying that people shouldn't be treated equal according to morals and law? I fail to see what that has to do with this discussion. Can you motivate your desire that people should be treated differently by moral and law?



Again laws are and do exist to maintain control over the population nott to enforce morality.

You sound like a true dictator :skull:



If morality was behind all laws - the abortion rights issue would not exist - because their would be no abortions. The deah penality would not exist because it would violate a moral law.

So you're saying that if law doesn't follow your personal morality views, law isn't based on morality? Law is indeed based on morality - a compromise between the different moral values models that different individual in the society have. You can't form laws according to just your own moral views - you must listen to what others think too. In some cases groups with a different moral view get disappointed when laws are based on another moral view in that issue, but such is life - it's not possible within a single society to have more than a single law that applies equally to all people within that society.



Correct

Since part of what you quoted above the comment correct was: "Differences in law comes from the differences in moral ideas", I assume you're indeed admitting that law is based on morality? Or was it an accident on your part to include that statement in the quote above the comment "correct"?



Not at all - the statement of violent overthrow is pretty darn specific to me.

Do you honestly fail to see that a statement that says that generally "any advocating of violence against anyone is a crime" (your statement) means that all cases where any person or group advocates violence against any person or group under any circumstances would be a crime? This includes these cases which it's clear that you think should be forbidden:
- advocating the overthrow of a leader that follows constitutional law
- advocating violence against someone based on race, religion, sexuality or political leanings
But it also includes these cases, which you vary between saying should be forbidden and should not be forbidden:
- advocating the overthrow of a leader that breaks the constitutional law, removes democratic rights, and carries out genocide
- speaking in favor of death penalty as a part of legal system, or suggesting death penalty for a certain legal case
- speaking in favor of using self-defense against someone who attack you

Let me make the question crystal clear - do you support this statement (which you mentioned above) or not?
"any advocating of violence against anyone is a crime"



However one must be willing to go against the law to do so.

No, it's within the constitutional law, which weighs heavier than other laws, that a government that breaks constitutional laws thereby becomes illegitimate, and according to law is allowed to overthrow. Anyone who imprisons someone for trying to overthrow that government, or imprisons someone for stating the opinion that he/she thinks overthrowing that government would be good, is committing a crime by imprisoning those people.



I suggest you take your own advice - you use Hilter - I use Gandi. You discount Gandi. It seems your more guilty of this then I.

Feel free to point out where I discounted Gandhi. Gandhi is relevant to the subject and I've discussed his case in every post since you first mentioned him.


Frankly you have not shown any document that shows that someone has a legal right to advocate violence of any type.

You keeping saying that even when I show documents that do support my view. If you try to interpret those documents according to your own backwards anti-democratic Medieval ideals of "king by the grace of God" (but without the blessing God and religious morality), then this discussion is pointless.



You might want to examine that one yourself - given that you discount the examble of the peaceful overthrow of the established authority by Gandi.

Not at all. Please point out how my view - the constitutional law I support - would have made matters worse for Gandhi. You may also point out why you think your view would make matters better for Gandhi, and also point out why making it illegal to advocate the overthrow of someone like Hitler who breaks the constitutional law and carries out genocide, would have made matters better for the 50 million people who died as a result of Hitler's actions.



Nope that is what your interpation - the statement means exactly what it states.
No, your statement means exactly that. A law is something that, if it was passed by a government considered legitimate, is followed under any circumstances where a legitimate government is in power to make sure that law is followed. You're saying that someone who overthrows an illegitimate government is overthrowing established authority (would you care to explain how a government that breaks constitutional law and carries out genocide would still be established authority?), and should according to law be punished for it. Now if he fails to overthrow the illegitimate government, they may send him off to camps (contrary to constitutional law), but if he succeeds, he should, according to your opinion, be sentenced according to law for his crime. The new government must therefore sentence him! The only way he can go free for saving his people is if the new government formally gives him amnesty. That's what your attempt at formulating a law would imply if used in a practical situation.

[Redleg]

So you're claiming the law says I'm right at the same time it says you're right, while our opinions at the same time are contradictionary to each other? :dizzy2:

Guess what Legio - the laws states that the advocation of the violent overthrow of the government is illegal. So the contradiction is in your interpation of my words.



I think you should read the IX Ammendment again.


The ammendment does not supercede the statement in the constitution about sedition. I suggest that if your going to argue the point that you understand what the body of the constitution states and what Ammendment XI means.



And you're still insisting that different people should be judged by different moral principles, contrary to the principle of equality before the law that is central to democracy.


That is what you believe I am stating. I don't compare modern times to issues of the past where the breakdown of morals effected the whole society. Hilter rose to power because in the end the German people wanted him in power.



You should read some of the 18th century philosophers, which lay the foundation for modern democracy. Their works were not perfect, because they lived in totalitarian states and thus had difficulties predicting the exact practical outcome of their statements, because their suggestions were so radical compared to the "king by the grace of God"-constutitions used at that time. But one principle which was very insightful - the courts should have the legal authority, the people should elect the government, and the government should only be allowed to pass new laws - but not control individual instances of law (the only exception being to give amnesty to sentenced criminals, but not imprison someone that the courts don't consider guilty) - that's a right that belongs to the court. The idea was that the court and the government shouldn't be a single body, so that not all eggs would be put in one basket. The system isn't foolproof, but it's what we've built the modern attempts at democracy on - court and government shouldn't be one.


Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and a few others. The seperation of powers of government is a different subject then Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech depends upon that seperation of powers. You arguement is based upon one specific type of instance - mine postion is based upon an overall application. THe advocation of violent overthrow of the government has never been protected speech. Again you still have not shown where a government has made it legal for such speech.

In the United States we have the three branches of Power. When one advocates the violent overthrow of the established authority - one is advocating the violent overthrow of the government - they are speaking of all three branches.






Equality before the law and by moral judgement is a necessity in all cases. A morality or law which treats different people differently can't be called justice.


Correct - but in the application of using a law to make violence legal - you are removing the equality from the system. Using Hilter as an examble and ignoring Gandi - you are not only apply a double standard you are also using moral relativity.



Indeed - Gandi was far from lucky on the personal level. Not all rebels want to become martyrs for their cause. In fact, so many people in history have been killed for their cause because they wanted to negotiate with the leader, or only try to achieve own independence rather than crush the oppressors who removed their freedom. Gandi was politically lucky in that he succeeded in his political objectives. The non-violence approach worked from a political point of view. But perhaps from a personal point of view, a fighter for freedom and justice like him should have overthrown the oppressive government and executed it's leaders, rather than try to bring them to their senses. Everything oppressive leaders do - like forbidding freedom of speech - makes it more and more necessary for freedom fighters to use violence directly without forewarning rather than first trying to allow the leaders to leave their posts peacefully when they're starting things like oppression and genocide. The problem is - when the people start using violence directly, as they're forced to when freedom of speech is forbidden, the leaders are never given any chance to leave their positions in peace, and get scared. By the time they realize the hatred among the people, it's gone so far that almost everyone has a personal reason to murder the leader. He can't leave power then, because if he does he will get killed. The only thing that can save him then is to kill all opposition, make examples, and keep doing so until he either dies of old age or - more commonly - his killing of opposition has made more and more people hate him personally so that a massive enough rebellion can be launched and successfully overthrow - and kill - him. The leader doesn't like to kill opposition - he does it from desire of saving himself, neither does the opposition like to be killed. Allowing freedom of speech to critisise the government in any way as early as possible is something that benefits both leaders and the people.

And the point you still refuse to see is that I have stated this several times - minsus the advocation of the violent overthrow of the established authority. When the people advocate violence against the established authority it needs to come from a moral stance not a legal stance.



Yes, that's what I'm saying too. But you're also saying that you're opposing having a constitutional law that would call a leader illegitimate if he carries out genocide or removes democratic rights. You're also saying that merely speaking in favor of overthrowing a leader who carries out genocide and removes democratic rights like Hitler did, should in your opinion be a criminal act according to constitution, and in your opinion be punished according to law.

Incorrect once again - I am saying that the advocation of the violent overthrow of the established authority is not legal right. Nor should it be included in the constitution as a legal right. Making a clause in the consititution to make a leader illegitmate if he carries out felonies alreadly exists - especially in the United States constitution. The Impeachment process is alreadly established.

Now I see the major problem with your interpation of my opinion. You don't understand the nature of the United States Constitution, nor did you read what I have actually wrote since I do base my opinion off of that document. You decided that my comments were on the far edge of nazi thought and have not paid attention to the words used. I have consistently stated that the advocation of the violent overthrow of the government/established authority is not a legal right nor it should be. THe United States has three branches of government with checks and balances established to prevent such a leader as Hilter emerging. Will it work absolutely every time - who knows - but there are checks alreadly established that have worked so far. When one advocates the violent overthrow of the established authority one is advocating the forceable removal of all branches of the government. When that exists in the United States - the legality of the actions of the people will no longer have a stance in legal codes - but in moral codes based upon the Declaration of Independence.



I'm saying too that a government like Hitler's government will probably try to call someone a criminal if he protests against the regime. But calling someone like that a criminal would go against the constitutional law, and thus make the leader illegitimate and legally and morally justified to overthrow. No leader can serve his country better by removing democratic rights and start genocide. Such tools - genocide and dictatorship - do not need to be reservwed as a right of a leader, because only a mad leader would ever feel a desire to use them, while a sensible leader would never use them.


And your point here is what? That your beginnning to see the point that the advocation of violence against the establisheed authority is not a legal right. It can however be the morally correct course of action in the instance of leader like Hilter, when the governmental appratuas and system has become a completely failure.



Praetereo censeo Carthaginem esse delendam...
Why do you keep saying that people shouldn't be treated equal according to morals and law? I fail to see what that has to do with this discussion. Can you motivate your desire that people should be treated differently by moral and law?


I don't compare the laws of Germany in 1930 to the Laws of the United States in 2000.



You sound like a true dictator :skull:


Not at all - a realist. Jaywalking laws exist to control people. Most traffic laws exist to control people and traffic. Lots of laws exist purely to control the population - that are not based upon any moral law.



So you're saying that if law doesn't follow your personal morality views, law isn't based on morality? Law is indeed based on morality - a compromise between the different moral values models that different individual in the society have. You can't form laws according to just your own moral views - you must listen to what others think too. In some cases groups with a different moral view get disappointed when laws are based on another moral view in that issue, but such is life - it's not possible within a single society to have more than a single law that applies equally to all people within that society.

Again murder is murder. So if the law is based soley on the morality of things - abortion would not exist since it is murder of potential human being. THe death penality is another examble of state sanctioned killing of another human being. And you are demonstration once again the problem with moral equilevency and moral relativity.



Since part of what you quoted above the comment correct was: "Differences in law comes from the differences in moral ideas", I assume you're indeed admitting that law is based on morality? Or was it an accident on your part to include that statement in the quote above the comment "correct"?



Some laws are indeed based soley on morality - murder, theft, adultry, and a few others. Some laws are based upon controling the population. The correct means that in essence I can agree with your point - if not the whole thing. A simple word that means for this discussion I will agree with the main idea that I precieved in that paragraph.




Do you honestly fail to see that a statement that says that generally "any advocating of violence against anyone is a crime" (your statement) means that all cases where any person or group advocates violence against any person or group under any circumstances would be a crime?

Do you honestly continue to on purpose ignore what is written and what is stated?




This includes these cases which it's clear that you think should be forbidden:
- advocating the overthrow of a leader that follows constitutional law

to be a crime it requires one to advocate the violent overthrow



- advocating violence against someone based on race, religion, sexuality or political leanings

Correct.



But it also includes these cases, which you vary between saying should be forbidden and should not be forbidden:
- advocating the overthrow of a leader that breaks the constitutional law, removes democratic rights, and carries out genocide

In the United States that individual would have alreadly gone through the impeachment process.

And its not a crime to advocate his removal - only if one advocates the violent overthrow of the government.



- speaking in favor of death penalty as a part of legal system, or suggesting death penalty for a certain legal case

It can be seen as such - however once again in the United States the death penality has been legal, then illegal, and back to legal - and is under review once again.



- speaking in favor of using self-defense against someone who attack you


Your reaching - the inherient right to self-defense exists.



Let me make the question crystal clear - do you support this statement (which you mentioned above) or not?
"any advocating of violence against anyone is a crime"


Correct that is consistent with what we have discussed.




No, it's within the constitutional law, which weighs heavier than other laws, that a government that breaks constitutional laws thereby becomes illegitimate, and according to law is allowed to overthrow. Anyone who imprisons someone for trying to overthrow that government, or imprisons someone for stating the opinion that he/she thinks overthrowing that government would be good, is committing a crime by imprisoning those people.


Once a leader such as Hilter gathers such power constitutional law no longer exists - therefore there is only the moral obligation to remove the individual from power. However their actions will go against the law of the established authority. The legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority does not exist in any constititution that I have seen or read. You still have not shown a single one.



Feel free to point out where I discounted Gandhi. Gandhi is relevant to the subject and I've discussed his case in every post since you first mentioned him.

Calling his actions lucky shows that you discount what Gandhi did. His actions are the model of peaceful protest against the illegal actions of the state. Martin Luther King Jr. Is another examble of such actions. Both men were far from lucky in their course of action. It took time, effort, in the face of danger, and violence by the state against them.



You keeping saying that even when I show documents that do support my view. If you try to interpret those documents according to your own backwards anti-democratic Medieval ideals of "king by the grace of God" (but without the blessing God and religious morality), then this discussion is pointless.

You haven't shown documents Legio - I pointed to the new law in Austrialia and the United States Constititution. Both which have laws against sedition.

The discussion has been pointless since you first brought forward the moral equilevency and moral relativity of using Hilter and not providing the documents that state its legal to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority.



Not at all. Please point out how my view - the constitutional law I support - would have made matters worse for Gandhi. You may also point out why you think your view would make matters better for Gandhi, and also point out why making it illegal to advocate the overthrow of someone like Hitler who breaks the constitutional law and carries out genocide, would have made matters better for the 50 million people who died as a result of Hitler's actions.

The point Legio is that the efforts of Gandi support the idea behind why it not a legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority. His efforts demonstrate my point in reality - just like Martin Luther King Jr's efforts.



No, your statement means exactly that. A law is something that, if it was passed by a government considered legitimate, is followed under any circumstances where a legitimate government is in power to make sure that law is followed. You're saying that someone who overthrows an illegitimate government is overthrowing established authority (would you care to explain how a government that breaks constitutional law and carries out genocide would still be established authority?), and should according to law be punished for it. Now if he fails to overthrow the illegitimate government, they may send him off to camps (contrary to constitutional law), but if he succeeds, he should, according to your opinion, be sentenced according to law for his crime. The new government must therefore sentence him! The only way he can go free for saving his people is if the new government formally gives him amnesty. That's what your attempt at formulating a law would imply if used in a practical situation.


You still fail to read what is written. The Declartion of Independence and the War of Independence supports my postion very well. The Declartion of Independence was the document where the rebels placed their moral right and obligation to remove a unwanted form of government. Their rebellion against the state was illegal in the eyes of the British Crown. Because their action was successful their actions were deemed correct and lawful.

Again the wording of the statement means exactly what it stated in the words used - not what you believed it to mean.


The moral obligation of the people to remove a dangerous leader requires them to break the legal code of the established authority. Its not an action that should be taken lightly. If your willing to pay the ulitmate price to fullfil your moral obligation to remove a dictator or dangerous government - you do not need a legal right to do so. A legal right allows for abuse by groups that will and do use violence to get what they want. Providing a legal right to advocate the destruction of the state - provides just that recourse.

It seems you are only operating from the veiw point of the European - not a world view.....

[Rodion Romanovich]

Guess what Legio - the laws states that the advocation of the violent overthrow of the government is illegal. So the contradiction is in your interpation of my words.

Hm let me get this straight. You say that an opinion expressed is the same as yours, and the same as mine, while not being the same as mine, and that our opinions contradict each other, and that I'm contradicting my interpretation of your words? :dizzy2:



Hilter rose to power because in the end the German people wanted him in power.

That's a very racistical and derogatory thought. The German people wanted better economy and revenge for Versailles, and their only alternatives were communists, who promised poverty and no revenge for Versailles. It's a lie to ay that the German people wanted mass executions of dissenters and later a Holocaust of Jews, Gypsies, handicapped, mentally ill and other arbitrarily chosen groups, as well as a war with the Soviets, a war in the Balkans, a war in North Africa, and eventually their own destruction through carpet bombing of most major German cities. The disaster with Hitler was mostly a case of society structure failing. It was impossible for the Germans to get what they wanted without getting the extra madness Hitler wanted, and that he hid in his propaganda until after he got elected and by scare tactics had removed freedom of speech, so nobody dared saying what they really thought.



Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and a few others. The seperation of powers of government is a different subject then Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech depends upon that seperation of powers. You arguement is based upon one specific type of instance - mine postion is based upon an overall application. THe advocation of violent overthrow of the government has never been protected speech. Again you still have not shown where a government has made it legal for such speech.

In the United States we have the three branches of Power. When one advocates the violent overthrow of the established authority - one is advocating the violent overthrow of the government - they are speaking of all three branches.

The court and the government are different powers. The government has a right to pass laws, not to imprison people who break the laws - that's the task of the courts. Anything else centralizes power in a way close to dictatorship. Neither USA nor any other country trying to be democratic is unifying them into one, as it goes against democratic principles.



Correct - but in the application of using a law to make violence legal - you are removing the equality from the system. Using Hilter as an examble and ignoring Gandi - you are not only apply a double standard you are also using moral relativity.

Please show where I have ignored Gandhi. If I recall it correctly I've taken the Gandhi example into account at least 10 times in my posts above. However, you simply deny the consequences of your statements, indirectly defending Hitler's illegitimate government and calling it legitimate. If that isn't what you're intending to say, then you should think twice about the practical consequences of your theoretical level statement.


And your point here is what? That your beginnning to see the point that the advocation of violence against the establisheed authority is not a legal right. It can however be the morally correct course of action in the instance of leader like Hilter, when the governmental appratuas and system has become a completely failure.

No, a government which breaks the constitutional law by carrying out genocide or removing democratic rights is illegitimate, thus it's legal according to the constitutional law to overthrow it, and at the very least allowed to state an opinion that you think the government should be overthrown.



I don't compare the laws of Germany in 1930 to the Laws of the United States in 2000.

[QUOTE=Redleg]
Not at all - a realist. Jaywalking laws exist to control people. Most traffic laws exist to control people and traffic. Lots of laws exist purely to control the population - that are not based upon any moral law.

Most dictators would call themselves realists. Stalin called himself a realist for executing all anti-communists - after all with the heavy opposition mass executions and terror were the only way to maintain stalinism in USSR. There's no law in a democratic society which is used to control people. Jaywalking comes from the fact that we don't think it's morally right to expose the drivers of having to expect a pedestrian crossing the roads anywhere - it would put too much pressure and responsibility on the drivers. Traffic laws come from the fact that there must be a moral rule as to who drives first, who is obliged to stop and check, etc., so that it's already predefined whose fault it is when an accident happens. If there would be no traffic laws, then all would just call the other driver guilty if an accident happened. And we consider it morally wrong to run over someone, or kill someone by crashing into their car with an own car. Therefore we make sure the traffic rules clearly state who's guilty before the accident happens. The only laws in history that have ever been used for controlling people are laws such as the nazi law that all Jews would wear badges. Such laws are not desireable in a modern democratic society.



to be a crime it requires one to advocate the violent overthrow

so it's allowed if someone advocates the non-violent overthrow of a legitimate leader which hasn't broken constitutional law?



It can be seen as such - however once again in the United States the death penality has been legal, then illegal, and back to legal - and is under review once again.

Exactly, and if it would have been illegal to discuss it then it would have hurt democracy in the USA, wouldn't it?



Correct that is consistent with what we have discussed.

Big contradition :laugh4:



Once a leader such as Hilter gathers such power constitutional law no longer exists

They do indeed exist, within what's the nation. An illegitimate government isn't part of the nation. Until a new government has been formed, the nation is government-less for a while under those circumstances.



Calling his actions lucky shows that you discount what Gandhi did. His actions are the model of peaceful protest against the illegal actions of the state.

I never debated his skills, which were great, but merely stated that the regime he happened to try to overthrow was a regime in a historical period where his methods were applicable. Non-violent protests wouldn't have worked too well in nazi Germany for instance.



The discussion has been pointless since you first brought forward the moral equilevency

So the moment someone says everyone should be morally and legally treated equally, a discussion becomes pointless? Am I only allowed to say that some people are better than others and should have special treatment? Or that some people are undesireables that should be killed? Because you keep stating that morality and legality shouldn't be equivalent to all.

[Redleg]

Hm let me get this straight. You say that an opinion expressed is the same as yours, and the same as mine, while not being the same as mine, and that our opinions contradict each other, and that I'm contradicting my interpretation of your words? :dizzy2:

The difference soley lies in that my statement states there is no legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority. The contradiction lies that you continue to believe my statements mean other then what it express states there.



That's a very racistical and derogatory thought. The German people wanted better economy and revenge for Versailles, and their only alternatives were communists, who promised poverty and no revenge for Versailles. It's a lie to ay that the German people wanted mass executions of dissenters and later a Holocaust of Jews, Gypsies, handicapped, mentally ill and other arbitrarily chosen groups, as well as a war with the Soviets, a war in the Balkans, a war in North Africa, and eventually their own destruction through carpet bombing of most major German cities. The disaster with Hitler was mostly a case of society structure failing. It was impossible for the Germans to get what they wanted without getting the extra madness Hitler wanted, and that he hid in his propaganda until after he got elected and by scare tactics had removed freedom of speech, so nobody dared saying what they really thought.


Again Hilter rose to power because the German people wanted him in power. That does not mean they expected him to do the things that he did, but his promises got him into power, and he maintained that power because the people never rose against him. Again you misread what is written to believe what you wish it to believe.

A very telling point begins to arise from your consistent desire to compare everything to Hilter and his regime.



The court and the government are different powers. The government has a right to pass laws, not to imprison people who break the laws - that's the task of the courts. Anything else centralizes power in a way close to dictatorship. Neither USA nor any other country trying to be democratic is unifying them into one, as it goes against democratic principles.


THere are three branches of government - the judicial branch, the legislative branch, and the executive branch.




Please show where I have ignored Gandhi. If I recall it correctly I've taken the Gandhi example into account at least 10 times in my posts above. However, you simply deny the consequences of your statements, indirectly defending Hitler's illegitimate government and calling it legitimate. If that isn't what you're intending to say, then you should think twice about the practical consequences of your theoretical level statement.

Calling it lucky does not count as taking it into account. Gandi's efforts was legimate use of free speech.

It is you who continues to incorrectly apply my opinion to your Hilter anology.



No, a government which breaks the constitutional law by carrying out genocide or removing democratic rights is illegitimate, thus it's legal according to the constitutional law to overthrow it, and at the very least allowed to state an opinion that you think the government should be overthrown.


For the uptenth time - the stating of the opinion that the government should be overthrown by peaceful means is legimate free speech. the stating that the government should be overthrow by violent means is not protected.



Most dictators would call themselves realists. Stalin called himself a realist for executing all anti-communists - after all with the heavy opposition mass executions and terror were the only way to maintain stalinism in USSR. There's no law in a democratic society which is used to control people. Jaywalking comes from the fact that we don't think it's morally right to expose the drivers of having to expect a pedestrian crossing the roads anywhere - it would put too much pressure and responsibility on the drivers. Traffic laws come from the fact that there must be a moral rule as to who drives first, who is obliged to stop and check, etc., so that it's already predefined whose fault it is when an accident happens. If there would be no traffic laws, then all would just call the other driver guilty if an accident happened. And we consider it morally wrong to run over someone, or kill someone by crashing into their car with an own car. Therefore we make sure the traffic rules clearly state who's guilty before the accident happens. The only laws in history that have ever been used for controlling people are laws such as the nazi law that all Jews would wear badges. Such laws are not desireable in a modern democratic society.


The comparision is mote. I am not in a postion of political power. attempts such as your comparision here continue to be nothing more then moral relativity.

Again even democratic societies have laws that are in place to control the people.




so it's allowed if someone advocates the non-violent overthrow of a legitimate leader which hasn't broken constitutional law?


That is consistent with what I have been saying this whole thread.



Exactly, and if it would have been illegal to discuss it then it would have hurt democracy in the USA, wouldn't it?


Not at all - the legality of the death penelty is always open to discussion.
When one calls for the spefic death of an individual outside of the legal system then that borders on a criminal act. And is often prosecuted under the conspricary to commit murder charge.....





Big contradition :laugh4:

The contradiction is in your efforts in stating that the advocation of the violent overthrow of the government is protect speech.



They do indeed exist, within what's the nation. An illegitimate government isn't part of the nation. Until a new government has been formed, the nation is government-less for a while under those circumstances.

You are incorrect - constitutional law does not exist under a dictorship. It seems you are acknowledging my main point without realization that you are doing so. Government-less means constitution-less. Governments gain their right to power in a democratic society from the Constitution.



I never debated his skills, which were great, but merely stated that the regime he happened to try to overthrow was a regime in a historical period where his methods were applicable. Non-violent protests wouldn't have worked too well in nazi Germany for instance.

And Gandi's efforts worked - so in essence it proves the point that the advocation of the violent overthrow of the government is not a needed legal right, the efforts of Gandi and Martin Luther King Jr, prove this point ambly.



So the moment someone says everyone should be morally and legally treated equally, a discussion becomes pointless? Am I only allowed to say that some people are better than others and should have special treatment? Or that some people are undesireables that should be killed? Because you keep stating that morality and legality shouldn't be equivalent to all.

When you try to compare a simple statement of there is no legal right to the advocation of the violent overthrow of the established authority to supporting nazi germany - then you have committed the pointless discussion.

And again that is your interpation of my statements. Morality is not equivalent to all - given the discussion around the death penality and abortion, you yourself have demonstrated this point very well.

Legality should be equal to all - but its not. THere is no legal reason for the government to include as a law the legal right to commit violence because you disagree with the government.

When you approached the discussion that the statement that Freedom of Speech does not entitle one to advocate the violent overthrow of the government is the same as supporting Nazi Germany - you yourself demonstrate that you don't interpate the statements correctly and that you are indeed not applying moral equalivency in the way that you believe you are. Misreading what is stated to mean something other then what it expressily states - demonstrates that point very well. Several times I have stated one is protected under Free Speech to advocate the removal of a political leader. One is even allowed to advocate the overthrow of a government by peaceful means. You have consistently misread the point that the violent overthrow of the established authority into something else.


Moral equalivency and moral relativity has been your main focus. The statement itself has nothing to do with supporting Nazi Germany or Hilter.
However feel free to believe it does - it demonstrates that Free Speech exists regardless of your opinion on it.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Again Hilter rose to power because the German people wanted him in power. That does not mean they expected him to do the things that he did, but his promises got him into power, and he maintained that power because the people never rose against him.

They never rose against him because it was considered illegal according to people like you. Those who protested felt ashamed and is if they did something wrong. Because people like you wanted constitutional law that would call for the blood of whoever advocated the overthrow of even an illegitimate, genocidal, anti-democratic government.



Again you misread what is written to believe what you wish it to believe.

It's you who want to believe that some people are undesirable and less worth than others. I can see it shining through in all parts of your expressed opinion.



A very telling point begins to arise from your consistent desire to compare everything to Hilter and his regime.

I've not compared anything to Hitler. I've pointed out a single of your statements and what consequences it would have in a case such as the one where Hitler got to power. A single instance is hardly "everything", neither is a synthesis a comparison.



THere are three branches of government - the judicial branch, the legislative branch, and the executive branch.

Wow, good you passed your homework ~:) now maybe you can try to draw some conclusions from the knowledge and try to understand it's practical consequences.



Calling it lucky does not count as taking it into account. Gandi's efforts was legimate use of free speech.

It is you who continues to incorrectly apply my opinion to your Hilter anology.

But you keep saying that overthrowing Hitler should in your opinion have been illegal but that Gandhi was allowed to overthrow the British rulers in India. Has this inconsistency got something to do with your liking for Indo-Europeans and Aryans over others?



For the uptenth time - the stating of the opinion that the government should be overthrown by peaceful means is legimate free speech. the stating that the government should be overthrow by violent means is not protected.

A government which removes democratic rights and breaks the constitutional law has deposed of the real government they themselves once were, and are this criminals. But you keep saying that anyone who advocates the overthrow of a government which becomes illegitimate by breaking constitutional law, removes democratic rights, or starts genocide, should in your opinion be sentenced as a criminal.



Again even democratic societies have laws that are in place to control the people.

We don't, that's the very idea of democracy and freedom. Why do you hate democracy? Why do you want to deny people of their freedom?



That is consistent with what I have been saying this whole thread.

So you may remove a legitimate government from power if you do it without violence? By, say, holding up a gun in his face and telling him to follow you and be kidnapped without doing any resistance?





If it would have been illegal to discuss [death penalty] then it would have hurt democracy in the USA, wouldn't it?


Not at all

So you're saying that people shouldn't be allowed to discuss death penalty in the USA?



The contradiction is in your efforts in stating that the advocation of the violent overthrow of the government is protect speech.

Are you saying that these things should in your opinion be illegal and punished by law:
- overthrowing an illegitimate government
- stating your opinion that an illegitimate usurper government that carries out genocide and removes democratic rights
- discussing in academic circles when a leader becomes illegitimate and must be overthrown
- discussing when a leader who removes one democratic right after another has passed the point when it's necessary to overthrow him, even if there's no intent to overthrow him at present, but in a future situation



You are incorrect - constitutional law does not exist under a dictorship.

Constitutional law continue to exist, just like legitimate governments may continue to exist during dictatorship. After Poland was occupied by the nazis in ww2, there was a legitimate Polish exile government. Similarly there were French, Norwegian, Danish and many other legitimate governments in exile. The constitution still applied. The local rulers of these countries were illegitimate usurpers and criminals who were breaking the constitutional law.



Government-less means constitution-less.

Not necessarily, unless the people start thinking that the usurper dictator is the legitimate leader, which he isn't, because he broke the constitutional law and is a criminal.



And Gandi's efforts worked - so in essence it proves the point that the advocation of the violent overthrow of the government is not a needed legal right, the efforts of Gandi and Martin Luther King Jr, prove this point ambly.

Gandhi was thrown in prison. Martin Luther King was shot. None of these men succeeded personally, only politically, because people were too scared to follow them enough, support them enough, because they felt ashamed to break racistical and oppressive constitutional laws they believed existed, even in the cases when they didn't (for instance Martin Luther King didn't break a constitutional law, however Gandhi did break the oppressive usurper constitution). The belief that it's illegal to overthrow an illegal oppressive government is what makes people so scared of overthrowing it. People are drilled from birth to not break the law. A constitution which allows the advocation of overthrowing illegitimate usurper governments tends to more easily give the people enough bravery to seek freedom, earlier in the process, before the mad dictators have time to kill so many people.


Morality is not equivalent to all

All should be treated equally by whatever moral rules and laws that we democratically together decide to build our society on. But the opinion on what laws and moral values that should ideally exist in the society varies between people. That doesn't mean people don't deserve to be treated equally before the law, and have justice and freedom. Why do you hate justice and equivalence in moral and law?



THere is no legal reason for the government to include as a law the legal right to commit violence because you disagree with the government.

Which I never said either. I said that a government that becomes illegitimate by breaking the constitutional law by removing democratic rights and carrying out genocide should be allowed to overthrow. At the very least it should be allowed to state an opinion that you would like it if that government were overthrown, but you're opposing that too. You think people should be scared to state their opinion that such a government should be overthrown, and you think they should be imprisoned.

[QUOTE=Redleg]The statement itself has nothing to do with supporting Nazi Germany or Hilter.
However feel free to believe it doesQUOTE]
Well, if you have finally changed your opinion and agree that it should be in the constitution of all countries a legal right to speak in favor of overthrowing (and a legal right to also do overthrow) an illegitimate government that removes democratic rights, breaks constitutional law and carries out genocide, then you finally agree with me, and we don't need to carry this discussion any further. :shakehands:

[Redleg]

They never rose against him because it was considered illegal according to people like you. Those who protested felt ashamed and is if they did something wrong. Because people like you wanted constitutional law that would call for the blood of whoever advocated the overthrow of even an illegitimate, genocidal, anti-democratic government.


Not at all - they never rose up because they did not have the moral courage to do so.




It's you who want to believe that some people are undesirable and less worth than others. I can see it shining through in all parts of your expressed opinion.


And again you have misread and misinterpated the statements to mean what you want them to mean. If your wanting to on-purpose misunderstand statements that is your fault not mine.




I've not compared anything to Hitler. I've pointed out a single of your statements and what consequences it would have in a case such as the one where Hitler got to power. A single instance is hardly "everything", neither is a synthesis a comparison.

Again you are incorrect. You have not pointed out where my statements have the consequence of allowing Hilter to gain power. You have on purpose ignored the context of violent.



Wow, good you passed your homework ~:) now maybe you can try to draw some conclusions from the knowledge and try to understand it's practical consequences.


Homework requires one to have been given an assignment. You still continue to attempt insults because of your failure to understand the arguement. Sort of like your continueing to use Hilter in a context that was never stated.




But you keep saying that overthrowing Hitler should in your opinion have been illegal but that Gandhi was allowed to overthrow the British rulers in India. Has this inconsistency got something to do with your liking for Indo-Europeans and Aryans over others?

Your own racism is beginning to show. The right to violence does not exist. Gandi used peaceful means to overthrow the government - which is consistent with what I have been stating. It seems that since you can not find away to defeat the arguement of that postion you again are resorting to attempt to use ad hominem arguements. Good show.



A government which removes democratic rights and breaks the constitutional law has deposed of the real government they themselves once were, and are this criminals. But you keep saying that anyone who advocates the overthrow of a government which becomes illegitimate by breaking constitutional law, removes democratic rights, or starts genocide, should in your opinion be sentenced as a criminal.

Under the government that is in control that is correct. Moral obligation to remove a dictatorship does not make it a legal right. If you believe it to be a legal right - then you by default must support the United States allying itself with the Northern Alliance to remove the Taliban. You must by default also support the removing of Saddam by any means necessary to include a foreign power doing so.

If you going to continue playing the moral equilevency and moral relativity game - be consistent with it - otherwise your postion is false.



We don't, that's the very idea of democracy and freedom. Why do you hate democracy? Why do you want to deny people of their freedom?


Again laws exist for more then moral reasons. ie again abortion and the death penality laws are prime exambles. I wonder why you hate democracy and freedom so much that you feel it necessary to attack others with allegations of racism where none exists? Rather humorous in a sad way.



So you may remove a legitimate government from power if you do it without violence? By, say, holding up a gun in his face and telling him to follow you and be kidnapped without doing any resistance?

The use of a gun makes it a violent act - Gandi did indeed have a legimate government removed by peaceful means - it seems you still fail to realize that point.



So you're saying that people shouldn't be allowed to discuss death penalty in the USA?


Try reading the statement again




Are you saying that these things should in your opinion be illegal and punished by law:
- overthrowing an illegitimate government

If your attempt is unsuccessful you will be charged.



- stating your opinion that an illegitimate usurper government that carries out genocide and removes democratic rights

One can state their non-violent opinion in a democratic and peaceful society.



- discussing in academic circles when a leader becomes illegitimate and must be overthrown

If they do not advocate the violent overthrowning of the government there is no crime. However if the government is illegitmate my thoughts won't count worth anything. Again attempts at moral equailivency and moral relativity do not work.



- discussing when a leader who removes one democratic right after another has passed the point when it's necessary to overthrow him, even if there's no intent to overthrow him at present, but in a future situation


You can discuss hypothethecial scenerios all day long - until you advocate the violent overthrow of the present established authority - then it becomes a matter of legality based upon the constitution of the land.




Constitutional law continue to exist, just like legitimate governments may continue to exist during dictatorship. After Poland was occupied by the nazis in ww2, there was a legitimate Polish exile government. Similarly there were French, Norwegian, Danish and many other legitimate governments in exile. The constitution still applied. The local rulers of these countries were illegitimate usurpers and criminals who were breaking the constitutional law.


The constitutions of the occupied lands did not exist in the occupied lands - constitutional law in Germany no longer existed when the German people allowed Hilter to gain dictatorship.



Not necessarily, unless the people start thinking that the usurper dictator is the legitimate leader, which he isn't, because he broke the constitutional law and is a criminal.

government-less means constitutional-less. Dictatorships have a law all onto themselves that is what makes them despots. If the people do not have the moral courage to remove the dictatorship the legal right does not matter. If a dictator takes charge of the nation the people have the moral obligation to remove him - however until they are successful they don't have the legal right to do so.



Gandhi was thrown in prison. Martin Luther King was shot. None of these men succeeded personally, only politically, because people were too scared to follow them enough, support them enough, because they felt ashamed to break racistical and oppressive constitutional laws they believed existed, even in the cases when they didn't (for instance Martin Luther King didn't break a constitutional law, however Gandhi did break the oppressive usurper constitution). The belief that it's illegal to overthrow an illegal oppressive government is what makes people so scared of overthrowing it. People are drilled from birth to not break the law. A constitution which allows the advocation of overthrowing illegitimate usurper governments tends to more easily give the people enough bravery to seek freedom, earlier in the process, before the mad dictators have time to kill so many people.

The ability to speak freely that the government is doing wrong is what makes the process work. The ability to advocate that the government is wrong and must change course is what makes the system work. The advocation and use of violence to violentily overthrow the government does not work. Lenin and crew came into power from a rebellion to overthrow the established authority which had become repressive. Pol Pot came to power with a rebellion to overthrow the established authority. You still playing at the moral equilivency and moral relativity game without maintaining a consistent approach in doing so.

The advocation of the peaceful removal of a government authority is protected speech. The advocation of the violent removal of the government authority is not protected speech.



All should be treated equally by whatever moral rules and laws that we democratically together decide to build our society on. But the opinion on what laws and moral values that should ideally exist in the society varies between people. That doesn't mean people don't deserve to be treated equally before the law, and have justice and freedom. Why do you hate justice and equivalence in moral and law?

Why do you hate people who have different opinions then yourself?



Which I never said either. I said that a government that becomes illegitimate by breaking the constitutional law by removing democratic rights and carrying out genocide should be allowed to overthrow. At the very least it should be allowed to state an opinion that you would like it if that government were overthrown, but you're opposing that too. You think people should be scared to state their opinion that such a government should be overthrown, and you think they should be imprisoned.

Then I suggest you go back and read what I have written versus amusing it means what you believe it to mean. The legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority does not exist - nor should it exist in law. It is a moral act of the people - when the government has gone terribily wrong.

and again read what is written - for the uptenth time. The advocation of the overthrow of the government by peaceful means is allowed speech. The advocation of the violent overthrow of the established authority is not protected speech. It seems you continue to misread the statements to mean something else.


The statement itself has nothing to do with supporting Nazi Germany or Hilter.
However feel free to believe it doesQUOTE]
Well, if you have finally changed your opinion and agree that it should be in the constitution of all countries a legal right to speak in favor of overthrowing (and a legal right to also do overthrow) an illegitimate government that removes democratic rights, breaks constitutional law and carries out genocide, then you finally agree with me, and we don't need to carry this discussion any further. :shakehands:

Again try reading the statements - I have never stated I am opposed to the concept that its protected speech to advocate the removal of a government official, I have never stated that I am opposed to the concept that advocating the overthrow of the government by peaceful means is protected speech.

What I have stated is that the advocation of the violent overthrow of the established authority is not protected speech. The whole discussion has been centered around your misunderstanding of the statement and your attempts of moral equilevency and moral relativity because of your misunderstanding of what is written.

[x-dANGEr]

I'm probably missing the biggest point on earth but that's why I want views on this. What does "Freedom Of Speech" stand for ?The ability to express your opinions with no fear, that is what I hear from the Western world's presidents. Though, IMO, it is the ability to express your opinion freely as long as it doesn't insult, or hurt others' beliefs.
I mean, what practical uses has it contributed towards a more modern society ?Not much; if you ask me. It is just an excuse for governments to say "XXXXX is a free country, it allows freedom of speech", that the concept gets too traditional to even have an effect.
Where does it start and end (if it does) ?It surely should end before the borders of insulting others' beliefs.
And, for example, individuals publicly express their ideas of provocation and/or hatred towards the identity of your country/nation, how far is it acceptable?Depends on how far they go, but at some point, it surely is not acceptable.
Is it still freedom of speech and subject to being "injudgeable by authorities" ?no Idea.
Is freedom of speech universal or should be redefined among distinct cultures ? I think it should be redefined within distinct cultures, knowing that each one has different beliefs, behaviours and standards.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Not at all - they never rose up because they did not have the moral courage to do so.

How would you know? Were you there?



Again you are incorrect. You have not pointed out where my statements have the consequence of allowing Hilter to gain power. You have on purpose ignored the context of violent.

So you mean the German people should have hugged trees to get rid of Hitler, and if they ever considered using any other method for overthrowing him they would in your opinion be criminals? No wonder so many are afraid of overthrowing dictators if there are people calling them criminals for even considering it unless they ask him nicely to step away from power. After a certain point where the dictator doesn't allow free speech, it's obvious that hugging trees doesn't work anymore. So many freedom-fighting rebels throughout history have died because they still wanted to be honorable and negotiate and only strive for their own freedom rather than the destruction of their oppressors, with the result that the at that time stronger oppressor won, and massexecuted the rebels. Rebels of this day can no longer afford that. A dictator can only be given one chance - by knowing before he breaks the constitutinal law that he will become illegitimate by doing so. Then any violence necessary is allowed, and encouraged. Anything else would be an outrage.



Under the government that is in control that is correct.

It's not should, but it is "would". Should implies you agree to the sentence. Would implies that you suspect the illegitimate regime to carry out such a sentence.



Moral obligation to remove a dictatorship does not make it a legal right. If you believe it to be a legal right - then you by default must support the United States allying itself with the Northern Alliance to remove the Taliban.

I've only spoken about people overthrowing their own government - or rather - an illegitimate usurper government within their own country. But it requires that they're wise enough to make a constitution which includes the laws I've advocated - that any government that breaks the constitutional law by removing democratic rights and carrying out genocide is illegitimate and legally allowed to overthrow.



You must by default also support the removing of Saddam by any means necessary to include a foreign power doing so.

If the local population is in favor of the idea of bringing in a foreign power for help, it's certainly an idea worthy of support. For instance when the cowardly Bush Senio promised air support for shia and curd rebellions, then at the last minute withdraw the support and left the curds and shias to a certain death. If he had continued, then both Iraqis and Americans who are currently angry with the Iraq war would have been a lot happier. Also if the Iraq war hadn't been based on oil theft rather than anything else, people would have been happier.



Again laws exist for more then moral reasons.

Your ardent love for dictatorship rule and terror is beginning to shine through with this "control people" idea of yours. Again I must point out that laws like the nazi law forcing Jews to wear badges was a law to control people, but no laws in a democracy are used to control people.



did indeed have a legimate government removed

A legitimate government shouldn't be overthrown. An illegitimate government may be overthrown by any means necessary. The government Gandhi overthrew was illegitimate because it was a colonial government which oppressed the people. The local country hadn't had a chance to form an own sound constutition, so there, only moral rules could determine whether the government was legitimate or not. If you have formed a local constitution it's foolish if you don't include in that constitution laws protecting the free speech, and the right to overthrow an illegitimate government, like the IX Ammendment of USA does.



Try reading the statement again

I've read the statement again. I said: "If it would have been illegal to discuss [death penalty] then it would have hurt democracy in the USA, wouldn't it?" and you replied: "Not at all". Does that mean you wouldn't think it would hurt democracy if it was forbidden to discuss death penalty?



One can state their non-violent opinion in a democratic and peaceful society.

yes, but there's no democratic and peaceful society once an illegitimate usurper government starts removing freedom of speech and similar.



moral equailivency [does] not work.

Why do you keep saying that people shouldn't be treated equally by moral? And by law? While each time I point it out, you withdraw the statement? A Freudian thought, which comes out by mistake but you are eager to hide so as to not reveal your dictatorship sympathies?



You can discuss hypothethecial scenerios all day long - until you advocate the violent overthrow of the present established authority - then it becomes a matter of legality based upon the constitution of the land.

But if currently leader x is leading your country, and you're discussing that maybe in the future it's necessary to overthrow the currently established authority x if x continues to remove democratic rights and starts the genocide he has been discussing. Should people discussing that in your opinion be considered criminal and in your opinion be punished for it?

If not, then again your attempt at a general statement contradicts the individual cases you would apply the statement to. As long as you can't point out the causality behind your opinions, your generalized statements tend to have very little correlation to the practical examples.



government-less means constitutional-less. Dictatorships have a law all onto themselves that is what makes them despots. If the people do not have the moral courage to remove the dictatorship the legal right does not matter. If a dictator takes charge of the nation the people have the moral obligation to remove him - however until they are successful they don't have the legal right to do so.

Whatever law an illegitimate leader passes isn't valid law. The law that existed before he went to power exists, and the constitution should in all countries support the overthrowing of such a madman. Like the IX Ammendment and the Australian law does, for instance.



Lenin and crew came into power from a rebellion to overthrow the established authority which had become repressive

You need to read your history a bit more careful. Lenin overthrew the oppressive Tsar Romanov (who used concentration camps for political dissenters), and thereby enabled the creation of a democratic constitution, in the March revolution. The March revolution was a legitimate revolt against an oppressive maniac. However, Lenin broke the constitutional law by making a coup in the October revolution, where he took power even though he only got 1/3rd of the votes in the election. According to my view that makes the March revolution legitimate, but the October revolution illegitimate. In your view, it seems to make the March revolution illegitimate (because Tsar Romanov still had his Tsar position), but the November revolution legitimate because it won?!! You have pretty strange sympathies, I must say.


without maintaining a consistent approach in doing so.

The lack of consistence is in your failure to see how the practical applications of your attempts at generalized statements, which aren't causality-based, contradict your generalized statements in several cases.


The advocation of the overthrow of the government by peaceful means is allowed speech. The advocation of the violent overthrow of the established authority is not protected speech. It seems you continue to misread the statements to mean something else.

Try to define the concepts of peaceful overthrow and violent overthrow. In the beginning of the discussion you said overthrow at all shouldn't in your opinion be allowed. Now you say violent overthrow shouldn't in your opinion be allowed, even if the leader is a genocidal dictator maniac.



Again try reading the statements - I have never stated I am opposed to the concept that its protected speech to advocate the removal of a government official, I have never stated that I am opposed to the concept that advocating the overthrow of the government by peaceful means is protected speech.

What I have stated is that the advocation of the violent overthrow of the established authority is not protected speech. The whole discussion has been centered around your misunderstanding of the statement and your attempts of moral equilevency and moral relativity because of your misunderstanding of what is written.
So you mean the German people should have hugged trees to get rid of Hitler, and if they ever considered using any other method for overthrowing him they would in your opinion be criminals? No wonder so many are afraid of overthrowing dictators if there are people calling them criminals for even considering it unless they ask him nicely to step away from power. You must understand that after a certain point where the dictator doesn't allow free speech, it's obvious that hugging trees doesn't work anymore. Those who asked Hitler to nicely step away from power were sent to concentration camps a few at the time during the entire period. Those who tried to kill Hitler with bombs were close to succeeding, unfortunately they didn't, so they were sentenced by the illegitimate law enforcement of Hitler's usurper government, a government which was illegitimate because it went against the constitutional law.

[Redleg]

How would you know? Were you there?

Were you there?

The study of history determines that my statement is accurate.

It seems your stuck on misreading statements, incorrect application of moral equilevency and using moral relativity to argue a point that does not exist. You still have not shown a single document or source that states the legal right exists to advocate violence to overthrow the established authority.

BTW stating that laws exist for other reasons besided morals does not equate to being a dictator - but since your stuck on moral equilevency and moral relatitivity you failed to see that point. It also seems that you are not consistent with your application of moral equilevency.

The legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority does not exist. It is not protected speech in any nation that I know of.

The legal right to advocate the removal of a corrupt leader exists - the legal right to advocate the peaceful overthrow of the established authority exists and is protected speech.

If you can't not approach the arguement without the attempt at moral relativity then there is no point in discussing the issue. Your not even consistent with it - nor did you comprehend the point about Lenin. He rose to power from the overthrow of the established authority that no longer represented the people.

Again it seems your stuck on your own idealogue point, attempts at protraying my statements as something other then what is stated, attempts at ad hominem arguements, futhermore you have failed to show even one constitution that grants the people the legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the government and/or established authority.

People who make statements like these don't have a leg to stand on in their arguement in the first place.
Has this inconsistency got something to do with your liking for Indo-Europeans and Aryans over others?

The Aryan Nation is a group I detest because of the advocation of violence against others because of their race. Next time pay attention to what is written not what you believe and interpated it to be.

The advocation of the violent overthrow of the established government is not a legal right - it can however be a moral obligation. If you don't understand that point, then continue to believe I support dictators, the nazis and whomever else you want. And you will continue to be just as wrong. Moral obligations take precedence of legal rights - try reading the Declartion of Independence sometime. It does not discuss legal rights - but moral rights and obligations of the people.

[Redleg]

Since it seems that you are misusing the term moral equilevency lets review what it really means. Like I stated very early on - I do not play moral equilevency games.

It also seems that you are not even following the proper meaning of the term.

A good written document on the subject

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/gaddis.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_equivalence

Then there is your use of moral relativism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Your arguement in attempting to compare my opinion to supporting dictatorship and nazism demonstrates these points very well. If your going to argue that my postion is wrong provide concrete evidence in the form of constitutions that state there exists a legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Were you there?

No, but unlike your view my view agrees with that of the historians.



The study of history determines that my statement is accurate.

Prove it, because it's against everything historical research has shown


BTW stating that laws exist for other reasons besided morals does not equate to being a dictator

That's what dictators say.



but since your stuck on moral equilevency

Equality before morals and law is a democratic principle. You have the right to express your disliking for it, but applying it in practise would be anti-democratic.



Your not even consistent with it - nor did you comprehend the point about Lenin. He rose to power from the overthrow of the established authority that no longer represented the people.

His October revolution overthrew a legitimate government, so he committed a crime against constitution. That's exactly what I wrote above.


People who make statements like these don't have a leg to stand on in their arguement in the first place.

So you're against freedom of speech? What am I according to you allowed to say in this discussion then? :dizzy2:



The Aryan Nation is a group I detest because of the advocation of violence against others because of their race. Next time pay attention to what is written not what you believe and interpated it to be.

According to the type of laws I and most democratic countries support, they're illegal too, because advocating violence against someone based on race, religion or sexuality is both illegal and immoral according to our system. However, if those people would come to power by election or coup, in your opinion they should be allowed to speak of such things AND in your opinion be legally allowed carry them out, and in your opinion anyone who opposed them should be considered criminal, and in your opinion be punished. That's a view you keep confirming that you're holding. That seems to be where we are disagreeing. You think that law should officially call for the heads of freedom fighters against a corrupt, illegitimate regime, while I think constitution should encourage freedom fight against dictators of the type like Hitler, by declaring anyone who removes democratic rights or carries out genocide should immediately be labelled illegitimate. Since you're still sticking to your idea and I'm still sticking to mine there's no need to discuss the matter further. In exiting the debate, I'm just as a friend going to point out that I think you should know the practical consequences of all attempted generalized statements you make. Try to make a synthesis of your thoughts sometime! Try to think of real, historical and hypothetical future examples and see what your statements would mean in those contexts!



Moral obligations take precedence of legal rights - try reading the Declartion of Independence sometime.
Finally you're agreeing to my opinion that laws are and should be based on moral values and not, as you first claimed, on controlling and terrorizing people.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Since it seems that you are misusing the term moral equilevency lets review what it really means. Like I stated very early on - I do not play moral equilevency games.

It also seems that you are not even following the proper meaning of the term.

A good written document on the subject

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/gaddis.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_equivalence

Then there is your use of moral relativism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Your arguement in attempting to compare my opinion to supporting dictatorship and nazism demonstrates these points very well. If your going to argue that my postion is wrong provide concrete evidence in the form of constitutions that state there exists a legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority.

Then I'm afraid you're abusing the word. That moral equivalency definition means that if you say x did y, but z did w, so x isn't better than y. Well, that's not the point of my examples. The point of my examples were that if you say a statement "y is true for all x", I point out different x for which y doesn't hold. When you make a generalized statement such as "all blue cars are dangerous" after seeing 5 blue cars which were dangerous, then you're not basing your generalized statement on causality, but on correlation. If a statement is based on correlation instead of causality it usually means that if you keep searching you usually find hordes of counter-examples - for instance if you look at more blue cars you see that there are thousands of secure blue cars. The same thing applies to this debate. You stated a moral and legal opinion, but when examples where brought up when that moral and legal principle would imply things you didn't really mean, you switched between defending the general principle you stated (which implied things you didn't mean) and saying that you didn't mean the things that statement implied. It's as if you were saying "all blue cars are dangerous", and then I show one blue car after another which is safe, upon which you say "yes, that car is safe", followed by me saying "so it's not correct to state that all blue cars are dangerous?" then you say "I don't play moral equivalency games, and all blue cars are dangerous".

So the correct term you're looking for isn't moral equivalency, it's synthesis. While analysis is the action of "taking something apart in order to study it", synthesis is putting together principles and seeing the consequences they imply in a practical situation. The analysis would be you looking at 5 unsecure cars and seeing that they were all blue, thus stating that "all blue cars are unsafe". Your synthesis, by looking at blue cars in reality, you find that there are blue cars which are safe, and that car color isn't causally related to safety properties of the car. That's the purpose of synthesis - trying as hard as you can to find counter-examples to whatever thesis you stated after an analysis, to see if the attempt at a general statement was good or not.

[Redleg]

No, but unlike your view my view agrees with that of the historians.

Not at all - historians dont use moral equilevency



Prove it, because it's against everything historical research has shown


Did the German People revolt against Hilter......




That's what dictators say.

Tsk Tsk





Equality before morals and law is a democratic principle. You have the right to express your disliking for it, but applying it in practise would be anti-democratic.


Equality is not moral equilevency.



His October revolution overthrew a legitimate government, so he committed a crime against constitution. That's exactly what I wrote above.


And you did not follow the arguement that was given.. Continue on with your moral equalivency.



So you're against freedom of speech? What am I according to you allowed to say in this discussion then? :dizzy2:

Incorrect once again. Using Hate speech is not freedom of speech.




According to the type of laws I and most democratic countries support, they're illegal too, because advocating violence against someone based on race, religion or sexuality is both illegal and immoral according to our system. However, if those people would come to power by election or coup, in your opinion they should be allowed to speak of such things AND in your opinion be legally allowed carry them out, and in your opinion anyone who opposed them should be considered criminal, and in your opinion be punished. That's a view you keep confirming that you're holding. That seems to be where we are disagreeing. You think that law should officially call for the heads of freedom fighters against a corrupt, illegitimate regime, while I think constitution should encourage freedom fight against dictators of the type like Hitler, by declaring anyone who removes democratic rights or carries out genocide should immediately be labelled illegitimate. Since you're still sticking to your idea and I'm still sticking to mine there's no need to discuss the matter further. In exiting the debate, I'm just as a friend going to point out that I think you should know the practical consequences of all attempted generalized statements you make. Try to make a synthesis of your thoughts sometime! Try to think of real, historical and hypothetical future examples and see what your statements would mean in those contexts!




Again playing the moral equalivency that does not exist. Moral obligations are sometimes not legal rights. Continue on with your false arguements concerning my statements.

And the generalized statements have been yours - so don't attempt to play that game either. You still have not shown a single constitution that states it is a legal right to advocate violence to overthrow the government.



Finally you're agreeing to my opinion that laws are and should be based on moral values and not, as you first claimed, on controlling and terrorizing people.

Not at all - that is what you are reading in the comment. Laws do exist for moral reasons, and they do exist for amoral reasons designed to control the population and their behaviors.

[Redleg]

Then I'm afraid you're abusing the word. That moral equivalency definition means that if you say x did y, but z did w, so x isn't better than y. Well, that's not the point of my examples.

That is exactly what you have done. So don't try to worm your way out of it. Comparing my opinion to nazi doctrine is just that.



So the correct term you're looking for isn't moral equivalency, it's synthesis. While analysis is the action of "taking something apart in order to study it", synthesis is putting together principles and seeing the consequences they imply in a practical situation. The analysis would be you looking at 5 unsecure cars and seeing that they were all blue, thus stating that "all blue cars are unsafe". Your synthesis, by looking at blue cars in reality, you find that there are blue cars which are safe, and that car color isn't causally related to safety properties of the car. That's the purpose of synthesis - trying as hard as you can to find counter-examples to whatever thesis you stated after an analysis, to see if the attempt at a general statement was good or not.

Again attempting to worm your way out of your use of moral equalivency and moral relativity does not make your false arguement any better.

[Redleg]

Finally you're agreeing to my opinion that laws are and should be based on moral values and not, as you first claimed, on controlling and terrorizing people.

And it seems once again not only are you attempting to on purpose misunderstand and misstate my postion - it seems that you are not even paying attention to current events.

The tax on emails - is not a moral law either now is it?

Its been a lot of fun Legio - but you yourself have shown that you are the one that does not understand moral equalivency and use moral relativity without regard to what is actually stated.

Interesting discussion nevertheless - but I am still waiting for one constitution that states that it is a legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority/government.

Until then keep confusing the moral obligation of the people with legal rights. I again suggest you read the Declartion of Independence. It demonstrates the moral rights and obligation of the people versus the legal right of the people very well.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Did the German People revolt against Hilter......

You've not heard of the around 5 attempts to assassinate Hitler? And about a few brave soldiers who refused to carry out executions, of which one well-known instead placed himself in line with those who were to be executed, and let the others execute him? And about the many young students at the beginning of Hitler's reign who tried to form opposition but were driven away to camps and executed? There were many who wanted Hitler to go, but scare tactics, brainwashing and an unsound constitution made most either unable or unwilling to do so. Claiming that the German people wanted the genocides and 50 million dead in the war is a pretty harsh accusation. Not just to Germans, but also to those who died in the camps, implying that you think there was reason to hate them. There wasn't, and thus there wasn't much real hatred. It was the personal hatred of a few sick leaders. The usage of brainwashing corrupted many who were young at the time of the nazi regime, but apart from them - the other generations - hardly supported the madness. They were too scared to act. They were under the impression that they were alone in holding a negative opinion of Hitler. Very few human beings are cruel enough to deepest inside support such madness, but most human beings are too scared to go against it.


Incorrect once again. Using Hate speech is not freedom of speech.
It's only hate speech if it goes against someone based on race, religion or sexuality, not if it's directed at for example someone for being criminal or being a genocidal dictator. Such is the legal definition.


Continue on with your false arguements
I wouldn't consider that statement argumentation against my arguments and opinion.



And the generalized statements have been yours - so don't attempt to play that game either.

If I don't recall it incorrectly, you stated that "stating your opinion to use violence against anyone should be illegal and punished", and if you really think that should apply to all cases then it includes saying that you think people should be called criminals and punished for, for example, saying that someone like Hitler should be overthrown after he started removing democratic rights and started genocide.


Laws do exist for moral reasons, and they do exist for amoral reasons designed to control the population and their behaviors.
Well, I hope the more moderate statement you make here than above means that you do not support the immoral forms of laws, but that you only state that they exist, which I agree they do - but I don't think that they should exist.



Comparing my opinion to nazi doctrine is just that.

I didn't compare your opinion to nazi doctrine, I merely showed when applying your attempt at a general phrasing of your opinion to the setting of nazi Germany (and the other examples I used above) would make your opinion help the nazi cause, rather than support anyone who wanted to overthrow Hitler. It seems like you're finally starting to understand that, and have withdrawn the generalized statement you presented at the beginning of the discussion. I think I understand your view on most individual cases, but what you fail to understand is that the generally phrased opinion doesn't really causally follow your subconscious moral view.



The tax on emails - is not a moral law either now is it?

All taxes come from the moral idea that people should help paying to the state budget for social security and similar, and are supposed to be distributed to give a heavier burder to environmental or unethical pursuits, and give a lighter burder to those who are poor. However, sometimes attempts are made at squeezing out more money that is needed to support corruption within the leading parties and similar. That's when law stops being what it's supposed to be - a formalized version of our moral values. And as I explained, since moral values differ between different individuals, the laws also need to be a formalized view on some sort of compromise between different moral values systems. There are many who don't agree with the existence of taxes at all, thinking that all should save themselves. There are also moderate people who think taxes should be cut low, but not be removed entirely - at least not while the basic outline of the society system looks like it does today (for instance you can't get food by hunting unless you pay for hunting rights and are not allowed to grow food anywhere without paying to own land, so only way of getting food is through money and if labor market doesn't have enough jobs for everyone then it would be society's fault if you died from starvation because society prevents you from hunting or farming your own food).

[Redleg]

You've not heard of the around 5 attempts to assassinate Hitler? And about a few brave soldiers who refused to carry out executions, of which one well-known instead placed himself in line with those who were to be executed, and let the others execute him? And about the many young students at the beginning of Hitler's reign who tried to form opposition but were driven away to camps and executed? There were many who wanted Hitler to go, but scare tactics, brainwashing and an unsound constitution made most either unable or unwilling to do so. Claiming that the German people wanted the genocides and 50 million dead in the war is a pretty harsh accusation. Not just to Germans, but also to those who died in the camps, implying that you think there was reason to hate them. There wasn't, and thus there wasn't much real hatred. It was the personal hatred of a few sick leaders. The usage of brainwashing corrupted many who were young at the time of the nazi regime, but apart from them - the other generations - hardly supported the madness. They were too scared to act. They were under the impression that they were alone in holding a negative opinion of Hitler. Very few human beings are cruel enough to deepest inside support such madness, but most human beings are too scared to go against it.


Assassination attempts were done - yes indeed, but the moral courage of the German people to overthrow their established government did not exist. It seems your still attempting the moral equalivency arguement. You made the comparision now you have to deal with the arguement about moral courage and legal right. The German People as a whole under Hilter lacked the moral courage to overthrow the dictator. There were individuals with moral courage - but not many, hince the ability for a popular uprising did not exist. The Jews in the Warsaw Getto had more moral courage then the average German during WW2. Care to guess how many Germans turned a blind eye to the concentration camps in their area? If I was to apply your moral equalivency standard - that would make them all guilty of persecution of the Jews, gyspies, homosexuals, communists, and political dissenters that were confined in those facialities.

Be very careful when attempting such a course of arguement when you take a specific comment - and in your attempt to generalize it make it something that it is not.



It's only hate speech if it goes against someone based on race, religion or sexuality, not if it's directed at for example someone for being criminal or being a genocidal dictator. Such is the legal definition.


Then you recant your use of these words. Has this inconsistency got something to do with your liking for Indo-Europeans and Aryans over others?
?






I wouldn't consider that statement argumentation against my arguments and opinion.


The comparision of my statement of there is no legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the government - to supporting dictatorships and the nazi regime is a false arguement. Continue on with the moral equalivency if you wish.




If I don't recall it incorrectly, you stated that "stating your opinion to use violence against anyone should be illegal and punished", and if you really think that should apply to all cases then it includes saying that you think people should be called criminals and punished for, for example, saying that someone like Hitler should be overthrown after he started removing democratic rights and started genocide.


Again with the false arguement and the moral equalivency where there is none.

One does not have the legal right to advocate violence against anyone. Its a pretty simple statement to understand now isn't.




Well, I hope the more moderate statement you make here than above means that you do not support the immoral forms of laws, but that you only state that they exist, which I agree they do - but I don't think that they should exist.

Again your only stating something I have stated all along.



I didn't compare your opinion to nazi doctrine, I merely showed when applying your attempt at a general phrasing of your opinion to the setting of nazi Germany (and the other examples I used above) would make your opinion help the nazi cause, rather than support anyone who wanted to overthrow Hitler. It seems like you're finally starting to understand that, and have withdrawn the generalized statement you presented at the beginning of the discussion. I think I understand your view on most individual cases, but what you fail to understand is that the generally phrased opinion doesn't really causally follow your subconscious moral view.

Still taking the moral equalivency route I see. You took a specific comment - the advocation of the violent overthrow of the government does not exist - into a moral equalivency arguement. The legal right does not exist, the moral obligation is a different matter. This is what I have been saying this whole thread. If you believe it was a general statement then it is in your failure to properly read the statement, and your understanding of the context of the orginial paragraph. I don't see any change from the specific nature of my comments - the legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the government does not exist. The moral obligation can and does happen. The initial discussion was on the legal aspects of Freedom of Speech. The moral aspects of Freedom of Speech we have barely touched the surface on.



In fact I am still waiting for you to present any democratic or otherwise constitution that states people have the legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority/government.




All taxes come from the moral idea that people should help paying to the state budget for social security and similar, and are supposed to be distributed to give a heavier burder to environmental or unethical pursuits, and give a lighter burder to those who are poor. However, sometimes attempts are made at squeezing out more money that is needed to support corruption within the leading parties and similar. That's when law stops being what it's supposed to be - a formalized version of our moral values. And as I explained, since moral values differ between different individuals, the laws also need to be a formalized view on some sort of compromise between different moral values systems. There are many who don't agree with the existence of taxes at all, thinking that all should save themselves. There are also moderate people who think taxes should be cut low, but not be removed entirely - at least not while the basic outline of the society system looks like it does today (for instance you can't get food by hunting unless you pay for hunting rights and are not allowed to grow food anywhere without paying to own land, so only way of getting food is through money and if labor market doesn't have enough jobs for everyone then it would be society's fault if you died from starvation because society prevents you from hunting or farming your own food).

Internet mail tax is to prop up the failing mail systems - has nothing to do with moral and just distrubtion of monies to support the national infrastructure. Nice Try at attempting to use moral relativity once again.

Internet Tax on email is an amoral law - it has nothing to do with morality.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Assassination attempts were done - yes indeed, but the moral courage of the German people to overthrow their established government did not exist. It seems your still attempting the moral equalivency arguement. You made the comparision now you have to deal with the arguement about moral courage and legal right. The German People as a whole under Hilter lacked the moral courage to overthrow the dictator. There were individuals with moral courage - but not many, hince the ability for a popular uprising did not exist. The Jews in the Warsaw Getto had more moral courage then the average German during WW2. Care to guess how many Germans turned a blind eye to the concentration camps in their area? If I was to apply your moral equalivency standard - that would make them all guilty of persecution of the Jews, gyspies, homosexuals, communists, and political dissenters that were confined in those facialities.

Finally you're agreeing to my point - there wasn't many who actively wanted the execution of Jews and the war in USSR, North Africa and the Balkans directly. Some wanted his overthrowing but didn't dare, and pretended to not know of it. Some accepted it as a means to achieve revenge for Versailles and restore the German nation after ww1, but not many (except of course probably for the generation brainwashed by being brought up by Hitler Jugend) actually shared the belief that there should be such mass-murder. The bravery level of most people on earth is about equal. What made nazi Germany end up killing more than any other dictator regime, was basically society and constitution related factors. It's not an excuse for what happened, but a valuable insight for anyone interested in society philosophy and interested in forming future societies where things such as the nazi regime can be avoided. None of the crucial factors lay in the human nature - fear will always exist in our genes (but is only reinforced and made strongly irrational by the wrong upbringing and environment), but in the nature of a society that was built up over centuries, without anyone seeing the consequences of all dangerous ideas and society structures that were built up: the over-respect for authority even when the authority went mad, the ability to use scare tactics, the undermined German self-respect, the nationalism and it's racistical form of it created by people who didn't understand Darwin's theories in the early 20th century, the ability of Hitler to gain the means needed for scare tactics before he officially begun genocide, war or any other oppression - the SA, the SS and Gestapo which were installed to spread fear of revolt before people had time to be convinced that there was reason to revolt. To remove democratic rights might not be an immediately apparent reason to revolt, it's only indirectly a danger. That's the reason why so many dictators in history have been successful, because people have failed to see that removal of democratic rights always is connected with a desire to do evil acts that the people would oppose if they had still had their right to vote and speak freely. There are many societies where human nature doesn't lead to such violence levels (only very few societies with an extreme amount of bad factors work together cause this violence), so it's not human nature and genes that cause such events. But there are society forms which cause it. There are constitutions, traditions, and dogmatic misunderstandings (trying to use the evolution as just another attempt to say "we are best", rather than truly understanding it) of things such as Darwinism - all of these things society factors - that are both the bomb and the fuse.



Then you recant your use of these words. Has this inconsistency got something to do with your liking for Indo-Europeans and Aryans over others?
?

That was in response to a post where you at the same time said there should have been no legal right to overthrow Hitler but was a legal right for Gandhi to overthrow the British regime.

As for the actual debate - these sidetracks are futile attempts to divert the attention from the matter at heart, freedom of speech - you're finally agreeing with my moral values on freedom of speech (it's unclear whether you agreed to this from the beginning of the discussion) that advocating the overthrowing (with violence if necessary) of someone like Hitler (an illegitimate leader) should be allowed, but not advocating the overthrowing of a legitimate leader, unless the suggestion for method of "overthrowing" him is to advocate the election of someone else in the next election, i.e. by following constitutional procedure for changing leader. But what I fail to understand is why you keep claiming that in your perfect world, law should contradict the moral view we're both holding - so that law in your opinion should punish someone if they stated their opinion that an illegitimate leader should be overthrown, and that they in your opinion should be punished for stating that opinion. I fail to see the rationale behind eagerly stating that you'd like the law to contradict your own moral opinion.

Since this debate has turned into a stalemate over this above in bold highlighted issue, I see no reason to continue this debate. If you wish to discuss the matter further you can do so with yourself. But unless you provide some answer to the actual subject (especially the bold sentence above) instead of ad hominem attacks this discussion is just a waste of my time.

[Redleg]

Finally you're agreeing to my point -

I never disagreed with the moral obligation to overthrow a dictator. It seems you have misread my comments this whole thread. A moral obligation does not equate to a legal right has been my point. One that you seem to ignore or misread to mean something that it is not.



there wasn't many who actively wanted the execution of Jews and the war in USSR, North Africa and the Balkans directly. Some wanted his overthrowing but didn't dare, and pretended to not know of it. Some accepted it as a means to achieve revenge for Versailles and restore the German nation after ww1, but not many (except of course probably for the generation brainwashed by being brought up by Hitler Jugend) actually shared the belief that there should be such mass-murder. The bravery level of most people on earth is about equal. What made nazi Germany end up killing more than any other dictator regime, was basically society and constitution related factors. It's not an excuse for what happened, but a valuable insight for anyone interested in society philosophy and interested in forming future societies where things such as the nazi regime can be avoided. None of the crucial factors lay in the human nature - fear will always exist in our genes (but is only reinforced and made strongly irrational by the wrong upbringing and environment), but in the nature of a society that was built up over centuries, without anyone seeing the consequences of all dangerous ideas and society structures that were built up: the over-respect for authority even when the authority went mad, the ability to use scare tactics, the undermined German self-respect, the nationalism and it's racistical form of it created by people who didn't understand Darwin's theories in the early 20th century, the ability of Hitler to gain the means needed for scare tactics before he officially begun genocide, war or any other oppression - the SA, the SS and Gestapo which were installed to spread fear of revolt before people had time to be convinced that there was reason to revolt.


This is nothing other then moral relativity. Society either has the moral courage to remove the dictator or it does not.




To remove democratic rights might not be an immediately apparent reason to revolt, it's only indirectly a danger. That's the reason why so many dictators in history have been successful, because people have failed to see that removal of democratic rights always is connected with a desire to do evil acts that the people would oppose if they had still had their right to vote and speak freely.

The ability to speak freely can only be removed when the people no longer have the moral courage to speak their minds.





That was in response to a post where you at the same time said there should have been no legal right to overthrow Hitler but was a legal right for Gandhi to overthrow the British regime.



And you still continue the basic misunderstanding that you still have. The legal right to advocate the overthrow of the govenment by peaceful means exists solely on the face of what Freedom of Speech means. The legality of the action is based on the fact that he did not advocate violence against the government nor the society.

Advocating the violent overthrow of the government is not a legal right in any constitution that I know of. You still seem to refuse to provide such a document - nor do you seem to ackownledge that the difference between violent overthrow and the peaceful process of correcting the government's actions.



As for the actual debate - these sidetracks are futile attempts to divert the attention from the matter at heart, freedom of speech - you're finally agreeing with my moral values on freedom of speech

You have confused yourself once again, the majority of the sidetracts were your futile atempts - nice attempt to push your failure to understand that moral obligations are not always legal rights, and attempting to state the sidetracks are caused solely by me, which doesn't fly in the face of reality, since the majority of the sidetracks brought into the discussion were done by yourself.

Its your failure to understand that one does not have the legal right to advocate violence or the violent overthrow of the government. It is your failure to understand that the moral obligation to do such a thing does not necessarily mean that a legal right exists to do so.




(it's unclear whether you agreed to this from the beginning of the discussion)

That is your confusion of moral values and obligations versus legal rights not mine.



that advocating the overthrowing (with violence if necessary) of someone like Hitler (an illegitimate leader) should be allowed, but not advocating the overthrowing of a legitimate leader, unless the suggestion for method of "overthrowing" him is to advocate the election of someone else in the next election, i.e. by following constitutional procedure for changing leader. But what I fail to understand is why you keep claiming that in your perfect world, law should contradict the moral view we're both holding - so that law in your opinion should punish someone if they stated their opinion that an illegitimate leader should be overthrown, and that they in your opinion should be punished for stating that opinion. I fail to see the rationale behind eagerly stating that you'd like the law to contradict your own moral opinion.


Your again confusing legal rights with moral obligations and values. Moral values are not always legal rights. The government will never give an individual the legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the government. (Until you can provide such a statement that there is a legal right to advocate and committ violence against the state - that is a valid statement). Allowing the advocation of violence is against the basic principle of a lawful society - which is the goal of all governments.

The moral obligation of the people to insure that the government serves their best interest remains above and beyond what is the legal right granted by a government or constitution. This is why goverments provide the legal right to Freedom of Speech - to help them fulfill the will of the people - to help the government understand what the people believe to be their best interest. In Free Societies there is no need for a legal right to advocate violence. If a dictator ever raises to power and the legal right to Freedom of Speech no longer exists - it them becomes a moral obligation for those who desire true freedom to have the courage to overthrow such a dictator.



Since this debate has turned into a stalemate over this above in bold highlighted issue, I see no reason to continue this debate. If you wish to discuss the matter further you can do so with yourself. But unless you provide some answer to the actual subject (especially the bold sentence above) instead of ad hominem attacks this discussion is just a waste of my time.

It seems you attempt something here based soley upon your misunderstanding of my statements - but have yet proved that such a legal right exists in actuality. If you going to state someone is wrong, proceed to ad hominem arguements, moral relativity and moral equalivency it would be better to actually have a document that supports the legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority. From my research over the last few days I can find no constitution in existance that gives the legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority.

Shall I once again remind you that your the one that used the colorful language to describe my position. I especially liked the racist comment you made that you still have not recanted, and the one about being a dictator. How clever of you to attempt to blame me for your ad hominem comments -------Not.

[Brenus]

“the people no longer have the moral courage to speak their minds” Or don’t bother because “they are all the same anyway”, “I am not interested in politic” and “I will benefit of it”.

“The government will never give an individual the legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the government.” Are you sure? The right (duty?) to resist to the oppression could be interpreted as such…

What is your analyse about the French resistance against Petain’s regime? I claim that Petain took power by a Coup, but some disagree with this point of view. So all depend on the analyse you make about the legality of a government…
I understand that morality and legality are different (that is the failure of the country under Sharia Laws when these two are mixed up), but, and perhaps I am mistaken when I read you, you seems to privilege the legal one.
I do think that sometimes you have to fight unjust laws (like discrimination or Racial Laws) even if they were voted by a elected (or less representative) Parliament, by arms if needed.

[Redleg]

“the people no longer have the moral courage to speak their minds” Or don’t bother because “they are all the same anyway”, “I am not interested in politic” and “I will benefit of it”.


exactly all those types of saying demonstrate either the lack of moral courage to protest the government or the willingness to give in to the government.



“The government will never give an individual the legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the government.” Are you sure? The right (duty?) to resist to the oppression could be interpreted as such…

The moral duty to resist oppression is different then the legal right to resist oppression. For instance the United States could be seen to have the moral duty to overthrow the oppression of Saddam Hussien in Iraq - but the legal right to do so is questionable.

The people have a moral duty to resist the oppression - however if that government is the established authority - the legal right to do so becomes questionable. Can you name one government that gives the people the legal right to advocate violence against the government. Hell I will even accept the clause that states the people have the legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the illegimate government that came to power through legimate means. But I personally have never seen such a document.



What is your analyse about the French resistance against Petain’s regime? I claim that Petain took power by a Coup, but some disagree with this point of view. So all depend on the analyse you make about the legality of a government…

The French resistance took the moral duty to fight oppression - but I do not believe they had the legal right under the French Constitution - and we both know Petain's regime did not give them the legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority.



I understand that morality and legality are different (that is the failure of the country under Sharia Laws when these two are mixed up), but, and perhaps I am mistaken when I read you, you seems to privilege the legal one.
I do think that sometimes you have to fight unjust laws (like discrimination or Racial Laws) even if they were voted by a elected (or less representative) Parliament, by arms if needed.

You have only slightly misread my statement - I grant no privilege of legal rights over moral duty. The moral duty of the people is more important to me then the legal right of the government.


In the instance of the advocation of the violent overthrow of a government be it considered legimate or illegimate - its not a legal right - only a moral duty. When one addresses only the legality of the issue - they must show that the constitution of the government allows for just such a provision. No such provision exists in any constitution that I have ever read.

I to beleive that the people must fight unjust laws - at first through the peaceful process protected by Freedom of Speech, and in the most severe of cases by violence if necessary. Sometimes one must fight unjust laws with violence when the government is a legimate and constitutional government. Such as would be the examble of the American Civil Rights Movement. But does that make the use of violence as a legimate legal right - again not in any legal documents I have ever read.

I don't confuse my moral duty as a human being with the legal right that can only be given by a government. If I believe something is unjust and all peaceful recourses have been tried - and violence is the only function left to attempt to create change - I not only understand its my moral obligation to attempt so, but I also know that I am about to go against the legal authority be it legimate or illegimate in my eyes. If my actions are successful in the case of an illegimate government such as Petain's my actions against the state will be forgiven by the people. If I am unsuccessful my actions will be punished by the state because I broke the legal code of the government.

Governments via their being are what grant legal rights - man gives himself moral obligations and duties to perform (moral rights if you will).

Freedom of Speech is both a moral obligation of the people and a legal right in most democratic societies today. With any freedom - there must also be responsibility.

[PanzerJaeger]

What is Freedom Of Speech ?

A worthless concept that can be dangerous in the hands of undesirables. It should be a priviledge earned only through birthright or success.

[GoreBag]

LEN, to summarise, Freedom of Speech is a pile of nonsense.

[Redleg]

A worthless concept that can be dangerous in the hands of undesirables. It should be a priviledge earned only through birthright or success.


LEN, to summarise, Freedom of Speech is a pile of nonsense.

Completely incorrect, in more ways then I can count.

[Brenus]

“the legal right to resist oppression” and “I will even accept the clause that states the people have the legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the illegimate government that came to power through legimate means”:
The right to resist oppression was in the First French Republic Human Right Declaration 26/08/1789 (Art. 2) which was included in the Constitution. I give you they cancelled this right on the Second one. And also it was a self protection and justifying; the Republic just took power against the KING who owned his throne from GOD.
I agree however it is probably the only legitimate Government which did it. As you stated, being successful, the French revolutionaries were legitimate.

“we both know Petain's regime did not give them the legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority.” You weren’t even allowed to criticise the Marechal !!!!
However, I think you didn’t completely answer my question: If like me (and my grand parents) you think Petain/Laval’s Government is Illegal, you have the duty to resist a unlawful regime. So, here we don’t speak of moral grounds.
But, if you considered that the Parliament gathered and kept inside by the troops lawfully gave all powers to the Saviour of Verdun who just cancelled the Republic, it is an illegal movement against the legal Authority.
So, here is the twist. If you don’t have a full legal right, you go for the moral one, you take higher grounds.
However, morality is question of beliefs (we can almost link with another debate). If, as Lenin, or Ho Chi Minh, I decide I have highest moral point than the Tsar or the Colonialists, I can decide to overthrown the Autocratic Emperor or the French Imperialists, even if legally they had the right with them.
But again, the French right on Indochina was based on a conquest and a puppet Imperator…

So, we come back on the links between morality and legality.
Ours laws are based on what we believed is the right things to do. The Right of property, for example, introduce but the First Republic in 1789 (following the USA, I think) was cancelled later, with the right of Insurrection in 1793. In 1848, Napoleon future the III but still president of a new Republic, introduced the notion of God, stating “In presence of God and the French Nation”, notion which was cancelled by the III Republic. I could carry on with the French Constitutions, we had six (but 5 Republics, but most probably we are heading for a 6th …), you’ve got what I wanted to say.

Violence was the last argument of the kings was a motto from Louis XIV, but democratisation made it available for ordinary people.
And the symbol of that is the guillotine. Cutting heads with axe takes time. The guillotine was more efficient, even it slight default came to surface with the use. What to do with the blood, for example. In Lyon because faulty sewers and draining the place became insalubrious, the blood staying and coagulating… Bad for tourism…

“If I am unsuccessful my actions will be punished by the state because I broke the legal code of the government.” So, all is in fact come back to this: “Terrorists become freedom Fighters is successful”
It is NOT question of morality; it is NOT question of legality, but success. A Revolution which failed is just a revolt and it is dispersed by the wind.

“With any freedom - there must also be responsibility.” With failure comes the axe of the oppressor who is the Legitimate Power which had the “Droit Regalien”, (Regalia Right? I don’t know the translation in English) to give death…

[Redleg]

“the legal right to resist oppression” and “I will even accept the clause that states the people have the legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the illegimate government that came to power through legimate means”:
The right to resist oppression was in the First French Republic Human Right Declaration 26/08/1789 (Art. 2) which was included in the Constitution. I give you they cancelled this right on the Second one. And also it was a self protection and justifying; the Republic just took power against the KING who owned his throne from GOD.
I agree however it is probably the only legitimate Government which did it. As you stated, being successful, the French revolutionaries were legitimate.


So the French Constitution of 1789 had it as a article in thier constitution - then I stand corrected.

But am I correct it is no present constitution?




“we both know Petain's regime did not give them the legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority.” You weren’t even allowed to criticise the Marechal !!!!
However, I think you didn’t completely answer my question: If like me (and my grand parents) you think Petain/Laval’s Government is Illegal, you have the duty to resist a unlawful regime. So, here we don’t speak of moral grounds.

I did answer - you have a duty on moral grounds to resist a government that you believe to be illegal. The legality can only be addressed by the established authority. Where France is in a unique postion (and several other nations during WW2 - with governments in exile) one can also argue the legal issue based upon which government one felt was the legimate government in France. However it is my believe that moral duty comes before legality in situations that involve oppression.



But, if you considered that the Parliament gathered and kept inside by the troops lawfully gave all powers to the Saviour of Verdun who just cancelled the Republic, it is an illegal movement against the legal Authority.
So, here is the twist. If you don’t have a full legal right, you go for the moral one, you take higher grounds.

Correct in the instance of France and the French Resistance the moral duty to fight oppression was clear. The legality of the resistance is not so clear.



However, morality is question of beliefs (we can almost link with another debate). If, as Lenin, or Ho Chi Minh, I decide I have highest moral point than the Tsar or the Colonialists, I can decide to overthrown the Autocratic Emperor or the French Imperialists, even if legally they had the right with them.


I agree completely with the thought behind this.



But again, the French right on Indochina was based on a conquest and a puppet Imperator…

This is where morality comes into play versus legality of resisting oppression. The morality of resisting and overthrowing the French in Indochina was a moral reaction to their oppression of the people. The French did have a legimate right based upon old laws - the people of Indochina had a moral duty to resist the oppression of the intolerable government.



So, we come back on the links between morality and legality.
Ours laws are based on what we believed is the right things to do. The Right of property, for example, introduce but the First Republic in 1789 (following the USA, I think) was cancelled later, with the right of Insurrection in 1793. In 1848, Napoleon future the III but still president of a new Republic, introduced the notion of God, stating “In presence of God and the French Nation”, notion which was cancelled by the III Republic. I could carry on with the French Constitutions, we had six (but 5 Republics, but most probably we are heading for a 6th …), you’ve got what I wanted to say.


Yes indeed I do agree legality is linked to morality - but as stated several times when it comes to violence and the advocation of violence the morality has to be higher then the legality. States that sanction violence as a valid recourse to settle issues - normally ended up having more problems then solutions.



Violence was the last argument of the kings was a motto from Louis XIV, but democratisation made it available for ordinary people.
And the symbol of that is the guillotine. Cutting heads with axe takes time. The guillotine was more efficient, even it slight default came to surface with the use. What to do with the blood, for example. In Lyon because faulty sewers and draining the place became insalubrious, the blood staying and coagulating… Bad for tourism…

Not following this line of thought as it relates to Freedom of Speech and the morality legality of advocating violence.




“If I am unsuccessful my actions will be punished by the state because I broke the legal code of the government.” So, all is in fact come back to this: “Terrorists become freedom Fighters is successful”
It is NOT question of morality; it is NOT question of legality, but success. A Revolution which failed is just a revolt and it is dispersed by the wind.

Incorrect in my opinion - Terrorism can be and is a function of the runaway concept that the advocation of violence is an acceptable function of Free Speech. To lump Terrorists into the category of Freedom Fighters is not a jump in logic that I am willing to take.

Advocating violence must be address only in the most extreme of circumstances - to equate it to a legal issue - violence is a non-legimate recourse other then in self-defense. Violence/advocating violence against the established authority will normally always be an illegimate action against the established authority - It can and has been the higher moral choice against legimate authority that has become oppressive in the views of the people. The French Revolution, The American War of Independence, even the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Communist Revelution, and Ho Chi Minh's Viet Minh revolution against the French in Indochina are all legimate exambles of the moral duty of man taking presedence over the legal authority of a government. THis is why the Declaration of Independence is such a great document in my opinion - it goes into the concept of human rights (much like the initial constitution and Rights of Man from the French Revolution). But these human rights - which equate to moral rights - are not all considered legal rights once a constititution is formed. Its telling that the same individuals who wrote the Declartion of Independence - also wrote the sedition clause in the Constitution and followed it up with the Sedition Alien acts of 1798.



“With any freedom - there must also be responsibility.” With failure comes the axe of the oppressor who is the Legitimate Power which had the “Droit Regalien”, (Regalia Right? I don’t know the translation in English) to give death…

The moral duty of the people is also part of that responsiblity. If you rely on the legal rights granted by a government solely for your courage - you will always fail in the end. Morality is the harder choice in life.

[LeftEyeNine]

OT: I just want to thank to primarily Legio and Redleg for driving a detailed-to-sentence hot debate peacefully. I am indeed convinced that, at least here, freedom of speech is valid and valuable. Thanks to both of you and the other members' contributions, forgive me forgetting the names.

Go on please, I'm very pleased to read these :bow:

[Brenus]

“I did answer”. Yes you did, however I feel the answer isn’t completed. Because you also add “moral grounds to resist a government that you believe to be illegal” then “The legality can only be addressed by the established authority”.
I use my freedom of expression to say this Government is illegal, so if it is illegal I have not only the right but the duty to fight it. If I considered a power illegal, this power won’t give me the right to try to overthrown it. This government see itself as legitimate, so legal. It will consider me as a terrorist.
So did Petain with my Grand-parents. And we even didn’t spoke about the part of France which was directly administrated / occupied by the Germans.

I fully agree with you about “my believe that moral duty comes before legality in situations that involve oppression”. But I am aware it could lead to extreme situation like the attempt Coup by the French Generals in Algeria, on the ground that De Gaulle, in giving Independence to Algeria, was betraying France and the Army which was fighting in this country…

“Correct in the instance of France and the French Resistance the moral duty to fight oppression was clear. The legality of the resistance is not so clear.” Yes, that is why I have neither respect nor mercy for Petain. French officers and soldiers, between these two imperatives were unable to handle the situation and that led to fight between French in several occasions.

“Not following this line of thought as it relates to Freedom of Speech and the morality legality of advocating violence”. Ok, fair enough, that was a lateral thought.

“But am I correct it is no present constitution?”. No it is not.:laugh4:

“Advocating violence must be address only in the most extreme of circumstances”. True in democracy, but if you take the example of the Left Wing Terrorism (Red Action Fraction in Germany, Action Direct in France, and Red Brigades in Italy) in Europe in the 1970’ they considered that these countries weren’t true democracies so they had the moral right to resist these regimes by violence.
Again, we get to the point of self given legitimacy through moral grounds: “The moral duty of the people is also part of that responsiblity. If you rely on the legal rights granted by a government solely for your courage - you will always fail in the end. Morality is the harder choice in life”.

[Redleg]

“I did answer”. Yes you did, however I feel the answer isn’t completed. Because you also add “moral grounds to resist a government that you believe to be illegal” then “The legality can only be addressed by the established authority”.
I use my freedom of expression to say this Government is illegal, so if it is illegal I have not only the right but the duty to fight it. If I considered a power illegal, this power won’t give me the right to try to overthrown it. This government see itself as legitimate, so legal. It will consider me as a terrorist.
So did Petain with my Grand-parents. And we even didn’t spoke about the part of France which was directly administrated / occupied by the Germans.



My opinion only -States and societies determine what is legal and illegal based upon legislative laws. We as individuals can only determine if we agree with that law and state, and what our moral duty is.



I fully agree with you about “my believe that moral duty comes before legality in situations that involve oppression”. But I am aware it could lead to extreme situation like the attempt Coup by the French Generals in Algeria, on the ground that De Gaulle, in giving Independence to Algeria, was betraying France and the Army which was fighting in this country…


of course it does lead to that - just as advocating the violent overthrow of the established authority will in the extreme lead to the overthrow of a legimate government.




“Correct in the instance of France and the French Resistance the moral duty to fight oppression was clear. The legality of the resistance is not so clear.” Yes, that is why I have neither respect nor mercy for Petain. French officers and soldiers, between these two imperatives were unable to handle the situation and that led to fight between French in several occasions.

I don't expect anyone to have respect or mercy for Petain - both of those emotions come from personal moral standards. I have neither respect or disrespect for him - I only study his actions from a historical point.



“Not following this line of thought as it relates to Freedom of Speech and the morality legality of advocating violence”. Ok, fair enough, that was a lateral thought.

:book:




“But am I correct it is no present constitution?”. No it is not.:laugh4:


:book:



“Advocating violence must be address only in the most extreme of circumstances”. True in democracy, but if you take the example of the Left Wing Terrorism (Red Action Fraction in Germany, Action Direct in France, and Red Brigades in Italy) in Europe in the 1970’ they considered that these countries weren’t true democracies so they had the moral right to resist these regimes by violence.

They were pursuing an illegamate attempt as evident in the lack of general support from the population.



Again, we get to the point of self given legitimacy through moral grounds: “The moral duty of the people is also part of that responsiblity. If you rely on the legal rights granted by a government solely for your courage - you will always fail in the end. Morality is the harder choice in life”.

Correct - Freedom of speech is just that.

[Soulforged]

Just a note to Red: I think there's a famous group of cases in the US that defines Freedom of Speech from an historic and legal point of view. Perhaps you know how to find their full sentences on the Supreme Court and tell me. I think that they're "Whitney vs. California", "New York Times vs Sullivan" and "New York Times Co. vs United States", the last one is specially interesting as it treats the subject on the "Pentagon papers". I'm intersted in this, because this group of sentences have not only defined Freedom of Speech (protection and limits) on the US but also in all America, as the US Constitution is the foundation of all of them.

[Redleg]

Just a note to Red: I think there's a famous group of cases in the US that defines Freedom of Speech from an historic and legal point of view. Perhaps you know how to find their full sentences on the Supreme Court and tell me. I think that they're "Whitney vs. California", "New York Times vs Sullivan" and "New York Times Co. vs United States", the last one is specially interesting as it treats the subject on the "Pentagon papers". I'm intersted in this, because this group of sentences have not only defined Freedom of Speech (protection and limits) on the US but also in all America, as the US Constitution is the foundation of all of them.


Haven't ever read the documents on the court cases - but lets review them shall we.

A google search does provide data on the cases.

" Whitney vs California"

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/44.htm


The Court, by a 7-2 vote, upheld the conviction and Justice Sanford, for the majority, invoked the Holmes test of "clear and present danger," but went further. The state, he declared, has the power to punish those who abuse their rights to speech "by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to incite crime, disturb the public peace, or endanger the foundations of organized government and threaten its overthrow." In other words, if words have a "bad tendency" they can be punished.

Further down you will find the wording of this paragraph

The right of free speech, the right to teach and the right of assembly are, of course, fundamental rights. These may not be denied or abridged. But, although the rights of free speech and assembly are fundamental, they are not in their nature absolute. Their exercise is subject to restriction, if the particular restriction proposed is required in order to protect the State from destruction or from serious injury, political, economic or moral. That the necessity which is essential to a valid restriction does not exist unless speech would produce, or is intended to produce, a clear and imminent danger of some substantive evil which the State constitutionally may seek to prevent has been settled...



This ruling fully supports the position I have taken in this discussion.

New York Times vs Sullivan

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=376&invol=254

This case speaks to the civil suit for someone committing libel against a public office. An interesting read.


THe last one was even easier to find

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case25.htm


In seeking injunctions against these newspapers, and in its presentation to the Court, the Executive Branch seems to have forgotten the essential purpose and history of the First Amendment. When the Constitution was adopted, many people strongly opposed it because the document contained no Bill of Rights to safeguard certain basic freedoms. FN1 They especially feared that the new powers granted to a central government might be interpreted to permit the government to curtail freedom of religion, press, assembly, and speech. In response to an overwhelming public clamor, James Madison offered a series of amendments to satisfy citizens that these great liberties would remain safe and beyond the power of government to abridge. Madison proposed what later became the First Amendment in three parts, two of which are set out below, and one of which proclaimed:

"The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments, and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. FN2

(Emphasis added.) The amendments were offered to curtail and restrict the general powers granted to the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches two years before in the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights changed the original Constitution into a new charter under which no branch of government could abridge the people's freedoms of press, speech, religion, and assembly. Yet the Solicitor General argues and some members of the Court appear to agree that the general powers of the Government adopted in the original Constitution should be interpreted to limit and restrict the specific and emphatic guarantees of the Bill of Rights adopted later. I can imagine no greater perversion of history. Madison and the other Framers of the First Amendment, able men that they were, wrote in language they earnestly believed could never be misunderstood: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom .. . of the press. . . ." Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints.

In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.

The Government's case here is based on premises entirely different from those that guided the Framers of the First Amendment. The Solicitor General has carefully and emphatically stated:

"Now, Mr. Justice , your construction of . . . [the First Amendment] is well known, and I certainly respect it. You say that no law means no law, and that should be obvious. I can only say, Mr. Justice, that to me it is equally obvious that "no law" does not mean "no law," and I would seek to persuade the Court that that is true. . .. [T]here are other parts of the Constitution that grant powers and responsibilities to the Executive, and . . . the First Amendment was not intended to make it impossible for the Executive to function or to protect the security of the United States." FN3

And the Government argues in its brief that, in spite of the First Amendment,

"[t]he authority of the Executive Department to protect the nation against publication of information whose disclosure would endanger the national security stems from two interrelated sources: the constitutional power of the President over the conduct of foreign affairs and his authority as Commander-in-Chief." FN4

In other words, we are asked to hold that, despite the First Amendment's emphatic command, the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Judiciary can make laws enjoining publication of current news and abridging freedom of the press in the name of "national security." The Government does not even attempt to rely on any act of Congress. Instead, it makes the bold and dangerously far-reaching contention that the courts should take it upon themselves to "make" a law abridging freedom of the press in the name of equity, presidential power and national security, even when the representatives of the people in Congress have adhered to the command of the First Amendment and refused to make such a law. FN5 See concurring opinion of MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS. To find that the President has "inherent power" to halt the publication of news by resort to the courts would wipe out the First Amendment and destroy the fundamental liberty and security of the very people the Government hopes to make "secure." No one can read the history of the adoption of the First Amendment without being convinced beyond any doubt that it was injunctions like those sought here that Madison and his collaborators intended to outlaw in this Nation for all time.

The word "security" is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic. The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged. This thought was eloquently expressed in 1937 by Mr. Chief Justice Hughes -- great man and great Chief Justice that he was -- when the Court held a man could not be punished for attending a meeting run by Communists.
[b]
"The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government. FN6


I posted a lot of the final ruling because it has multiple facets especially the last paragraph in bold. While it does not fully support my opinion about the advocation of violence - it does not reserve the decision from the " Whitney vs California" case either.



Here is an interesting dissenting opinion for you to read about concerning another Freedom of Speech issue.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0360_0109_ZD.html

The courts majority opinion can be found here.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0360_0109_ZO.html

[Redleg]

In the last paragraph reserve should be reverse....

[Soulforged]

Thanks Red. There's your answer LEN. That's how at least half of the world sees Freedom of Speech, perhaps it should be another thing, but right now that's how it's. However we might as well be corrected by those historic cases, we're grouping all kinds of freedoms in the title "Freedom of Speech" in reality there are speech, press, religion and assembly. It has been declared also, by the Interamerican Court of Human Rights, also in the Pact of San José of Costa Rica (American Convention on Human Rights), that " Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one's choice." So it also comprehends the right to give and receive information, this right is of vital importance to sustain representative democracy as it allows people to have a critic vission of their politic power, of the social and economic situation. That was the purpose of that freedom since it was "created", with the Declaration of Human Rights (1789). Of course it's not limited to that, that only gives social importance to it. Of course it's not absolute. The Interamerican Court, the same as the Convention, and the american Courts (correct me if I'm wrong Red), state that it's absolute in the sense that it cannot have any "prior restraints", but that doesn't free the people who abuse the right or commit criminal acts with it, of the consequences of such actions. The right to express ideas is even more protected and only under the reasons of public order or personal affection could it be censored, but always after they're published. That's but a syntesis, if anyone wants to know the whole issue and it's history the cases that Redleg provided are perfect for that.

"Whitney vs. California", set the general limitations of Freedom of Speech as they're expressed above.
"New York Times vs. Sullivan", set the theory of the "real malice", wich reduces the protection of public figures, specially politicians, against inexact, false or insultant information in public debates.
"New York Times vs. United States", talks about limitations regarding public security vs. freedom of speech, this is particulary important to the subject.

By the way, Red, I never said you were wrong, that IS Freedom of Speech, however I always tought it SHOULD be another thing. The limitations, as they're, are pretty reasonable though.

[Redleg]

By the way, Red, I never said you were wrong, that IS Freedom of Speech, however I always tought it SHOULD be another thing. The limitations, as they're, are pretty reasonable though.

Tis okay - it was not directed at you in particular. :oops: