What is Freedom Of Speech ?

[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?