What is Freedom Of Speech ?

[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.