What is Freedom Of Speech ?

[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.