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.


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.


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


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)

Reply