What is Freedom Of Speech ?

[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.