What is Freedom Of Speech ?

[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"

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.

[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.

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

I hope all American voters remember what McCain and Feingold have done to our freedom of speech when we choose our next president.

[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.

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?!! 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?!!

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

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

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.