Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
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.