What is Freedom Of Speech ?

[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.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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?

Some rose by gradually removing democratic rights. Others rose by overthrowing a government that didn't allow freedom of speech, and thus managed to degrade so much before people started speaking, that they accepted anything - no matter how bad - in it's place when revolt came. None of them rose because their countries had freedom of speech.

Real easy - all Tax laws, seatbelt laws, smoking laws, jaywalking laws, Shall I continue?

Tax is because we think it's morally important to redistribute money to give people who can't compete for the few jobs a chance to survive (socialist governments think it's morally important to grant them more than just survival). Seatbelt laws are because we think it's morally incorrect that a parent shouldn't take responsibility for the safety of it's child, and the fact that people without seatbelts can fly out of their cars during a collission and hurt others, and finally that society to some extent considers itself to have a moral responsibility for it's citizens not hurting themselves (the latter being a matter of dispute). I'm not familiar with what the word jaywalking means. But as you can see, all laws have very a solid foundation in moral values, even if it isn't obvious to all of us at first glance. Otherwise they wouldn't exist.

Resorting to another insult I see

"Another insult" requires that there is an insult, and that there has been one before

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.

If we can find a way to protect people from such things, I think we should. Especially when the cost of it is nothing other than that we make removal of democracy and rise of dictatorship more difficult in the process.

If the interest of the state conflicts with the desires of the people

The people are the state. Their interests can never conflict with each others. A government's or dictator's interests can however conflict with the interests of the people - and thereby the state.

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.

Hitler was jailed for acting, not for talking. He tried a coup to take dictatorial power over Germany. Note: a coup against a government which allowed freedom of speech. His later removal of democracy happened when he himself already held power over Germany! That means it wasn't a justified action - removal of the current ruler is sometimes justified if the current ruler is mad. But if you are the ruler yourself, then I don't understand how you could possibly manage to lead a justified revolt against the regime.

the advocation of the violent overthrow of the established authority is not protected speech, nor should it be.

You could say that Tsar Romanov and Louis XVI were "established authority". The population thought otherwise when both of those through their decisions and oppression made it impossible for the population to get food. Romanov was also well known for his infamous secret police, which arrested people for saying what they thought. In religious Europe up to the 18th-19th century, being "King by the grace of God" was considered established authority.

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 still haven't been given any single example of where freedom to state your opinion (note: merely speaking, but not acting) that a government should be overthrown, by violence if necessary, has caused any problems comparable with the problems caused by Hitler, and the rest of the people I mentioned on my list above. Actually I find it hard to believe that if you would sum up all examples in history arguing for your opinion of removing this fundamental part of freedom of speech, those together wouldn't beat the 50 million dead caused by just a single instance of the type of threat I think we should protect ourselves from. And again I ask you why would it hurt to strengthen our protection from genocidal dictators if it would cost us nothing to do so?

That is not the comparison.

man x murders man y
man x advocates the death of man y.

So you wouldn't call it "advocate overthrow of a government" if you say "I think the government deserves to be overthrown"? If you do, you must accept that my parable was the correct one. If you don't, then your parable applies, but then you're discussing a completely different matter than I am discussing.

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.

You're trying to avoid the question. Maybe you remember the death penalty discussion we had a few months ago. While you don't seem to advocate violence against the child molestors, do you think all those who spoke in favor of death penalty against child molestors in that debate should be prosecuted for stating their opinion? Do you consider your golden rule "advocating violence against anyone should be illegal and all who advocate violence against another should be prosecuted" to have exceptions or not?

Normal laws of most countries today phrase the restrictions on free speech by specifically forbidding "advocating violence against someone based on race, religion or political leanings" (note the important part in italic font). Those laws cover most of the necessary restrictions on free speech. But the principle you're advocating would make 99% of all humans criminals.

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.

If there are many people who misunderstand you and think you're a fascist, maybe it's your phrasing of your opinion that is unclear. But I don't think you're a fascist, I think you mean well deep down and that it's merely that you're entangling yourself in your attempts to formulate general principles, which you refuse to invalidate when you find counter-examples against them. That's why I ask you questions "do you really hold this [insert possibly fascistical opinion here] opinion or not?" rather than accusing you of being a fascist without proof rather than ending the discussion in understanding and as friends. A principle which I think applies to freedom of speech too, by the way: "I might dislike your opinion but I'd die for your right to state it".

It sums up my postion on Freedom of Speech issues very nicely. So does the opening statement of mine in this thread.

Considering that many people, including myself, still have trouble understanding exactly what you're trying to say with that statement - one second you say things which are almost defending Hitler's nazi government, and the next moment you say that you still dislike Hitler. We're asking questions not because we are unable to read what you have written, but because in what you have written previously you haven't answered all of our questions. This statement for instance:

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.

...repeatedly says that the government may and should arrest people for verbally speaking in favor of overthrowing the government (note: not carrying out any actual violent act). That's an ideology that only belongs in the arsenal of a dictator like Hitler or Stalin IMO. That's what makes us all shocked, and makes us ask specific questions to find out if you're really supporting that undemocratic view, or - as we hope: you made a typo or we're merely misunderstanding the wording of your statement.

[Redleg]

Some rose by gradually removing democratic rights. Others rose by overthrowing a government that didn't allow freedom of speech, and thus managed to degrade so much before people started speaking, that they accepted anything - no matter how bad - in it's place when revolt came.

And supports my postion completely now doesn't

Tax is because we think it's morally important to redistribute money to give people who can't compete for the few jobs a chance to survive (socialist governments think it's morally important to grant them more than just survival). Seatbelt laws are because we think it's morally incorrect that a parent shouldn't take responsibility for the safety of it's child, and the fact that people without seatbelts can fly out of their cars during a collission and hurt others, and finally that society to some extent considers itself to have a moral responsibility for it's citizens not hurting themselves (the latter being a matter of dispute). I'm not familiar with what the word jaywalking means. But as you can see, all laws have very a solid foundation in moral values, even if it isn't obvious to all of us at first glance. Otherwise they wouldn't exist.

Laws exist for multiple reasons - there is no morality of wearing a seatbelt
or not wearing a seatbelt.

"Another insult" requires that there is an insult, and that there has been one before

Moral equalivency strikes again I see.

If we can find a way to protect people from such things, I think we should. Especially when the cost of it is nothing other than that we make removal of democracy and rise of dictatorship more difficult in the process.

Stating that the advocation of the violent overthrow of the government does not support such a conclusion.

Hitler was jailed for acting, not for talking. He tried a coup to take dictatorial power over Germany.

Correct - but how many of his speeches before hand were disrupted by the government?

You could say that Tsar Romanov and Louis XVI were "established authority". The population thought otherwise when both of those through their decisions and oppression made it impossible for the population to get food. Romanov was also well known for his infamous secret police, which arrested people for saying what they thought. In religious Europe up to the 18th-19th century, being "King by the grace of God" was considered established authority.

This falls within the concept I am talking about - when the state no longer serves the people the people will revolt. The advocation of the revolt however is not protected speech.

I still haven't been given any single example of where freedom to state your opinion (note: merely speaking, but not acting) that a government should be overthrown, by violence if necessary, has caused any problems comparable with the problems caused by Hitler, and the rest of the people I mentioned on my list above. Actually I find it hard to believe that if you would sum up all examples in history arguing for your opinion of removing this fundamental part of freedom of speech, those together wouldn't beat the 50 million dead caused by just a single instance of the type of threat I think we should protect ourselves from. And again I ask you why would it hurt to strengthen our protection from genocidal dictators if it would cost us nothing to do so?

That is because simply put the ability to state that one advocates the violent overthrow of the established authority does not exist as a right. Nor is part of the speech protected by the concept of Freedom of Speech. Take a look into the different nations and find how many have laws that protect speech that advocates the violent overthrow of the established government.

I bet you will find more laws against sedition then you will find protecting seditious speech.

So you wouldn't call it "advocate overthrow of a government" if you say "I think the government deserves to be overthrown"? If you do, you must accept that my parable was the correct one. If you don't, then your parable applies, but then you're discussing a completely different matter than I am discussing.

Notice how many times I state the violent overthrow of the government. The peaceful demonstrations that call for the removal of the government authority is protected speech - the speech that advocates violence is not.

You're trying to avoid the question. Maybe you remember the death penalty discussion we had a few months ago. While you don't seem to advocate violence against the child molestors, do you think all those who spoke in favor of death penalty against child molestors in that debate should be prosecuted for stating their opinion? Do you consider your golden rule "advocating violence against anyone should be illegal and all who advocate violence against another should be prosecuted" to have exceptions or not?

Not avoiding the question at all - the answer was given.

Normal laws of most countries today phrase the restrictions on free speech by specifically forbidding "advocating violence against someone based on race, religion or political leanings" (note the important part in italic font). Those laws cover most of the necessary restrictions on free speech. But the principle you're advocating would make 99% of all humans criminals.

Not at all - its one and the same.

If there are many people who misunderstand you and think you're a fascist, maybe it's your phrasing of your opinion that is unclear. But I don't think you're a fascist, I think you mean well deep down and that it's merely that you're entangling yourself in your attempts to formulate general principles, which you refuse to invalidate when you find counter-examples against them. That's why I ask you questions "do you really hold this [insert possibly fascistical opinion here] opinion or not?" rather than accusing you of being a fascist without proof.

Oh boy you tried something and now your doing what you have just accused me of. Nicely done.....not.

Considering that many people, including myself, still have trouble understanding exactly what you're trying to say with that statement - one second you say things which are almost defending Hitler's nazi government, and the next moment you say that you still dislike Hitler. We're asking questions not because we are unable to read what you have written, but because in what you have written previously you haven't answered our questions. This statement for instance:

If you think I have defended Hilter's Nazi government then you have misread everything written. Attempting to play moral equalivancy games does not apply to a discussion of Freedom of Speech.

...repeatedly says that the government may and should arrest people for verbally protesting (note: not carrying out any actual violent act) against the government.

That is not what it states. It states simply that speech is protected as long as it does not advocate violence.

That's an ideology that only belongs in the arsenal of a dictator like Hitler or Stalin. That's what makes us all shocked, and makes us ask specific questions to find out if you're really supporting that undemocratic view, or - as we hope - you made a typo or we're merely misunderstanding the wording of your statement.

Again your comment is based upon your own misreading of the statement. Notice the words violent overthrow of the goverment is in there - not protesting the government.

Here I will bold it for you this time.

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.

The fault of not understanding the statement lies in your reading for something that is not there. Looking for Nazi comparisions is playing a moral equalivency that is very telling.

[Rodion Romanovich]

And supports my postion completely now doesn't

No, it supports my position, that freedom of speech hasn't hurt anyone, and that many of those problems would have been possible to avoid if freedom of speech had been allowed.

Laws exist for multiple reasons - there is no morality of wearing a seatbelt
or not wearing a seatbelt.

I think you're failing to understand one of the most important concepts of society building. There's indeed morality in wearing a seatbelt or not. Why do you think people have chosen to make not wearing seatbelt illegal? Are you personally for or against the law to wear seatbelts? If you are for it, try to think of why you support it.

Moral equalivency strikes again I see.

What is it you have against moral equivalency? Do you think different rules should apply to different people? Are you against justice and equal treatment of people before the law?

Correct - but how many of his speeches before hand were disrupted by the government?

I don't see what significance this has to the matter we're discussing. Could you care to explain why this would make you consider it necessary to have a law that would for example allow Hitler to imprison anyone who advocated the overthrowing of his nazi government when he started building concentration camps?

The advocation of the revolt however is not protected speech.

Again you're back at "the constitution should call a leader legitimate even if he starts genocide or change the constitution to remove all democratic rights from it". I don't agree with that point. There are certain lines a leader may not pass if he wishes to remain legitimate (and those lines can be defined as laws in a constitution). Starting genocide is one of the things that make a leader illegitimate. I still fail to understand why you keep stating that the constitution should preserve a leader a right to carry out genocide. There's absolutely no justifiable conditions under which genocide would be needed by any leader unless he's insane.

That is because simply put the ability to state that one advocates the violent overthrow of the established authority does not exist as a right.

So you again say that a Jew, or German for that part, in nazi Germany had no human right to overthrow Hitler when he started building concentration camps and discussing the "final solution"?

Nor is part of the speech protected by the concept of Freedom of Speech.

You're going even further than that - not only would in your eyes a Jew or German in nazi Germany have no right to overthrow Hitler, but he would be a criminal if he merely suggested that Hitler should be overthrown?

Take a look into the different nations and find how many have laws that protect speech that advocates the violent overthrow of the established government.

I bet you will find more laws against sedition then you will find protecting seditious speech.

In countries who haven't changed their constitution since the Medieval period, such laws might exist. But most of those laws are invalidated and in the process to be removed. There's no reason why advocating the overthrow of a maniac who carries out genocide should be considered a crime, and thereby something that a citizen should have bad conscience over wanting to do. Nothing would have given me - and most other people of this world - a better conscience than overthrowing someone like Hitler if someone like that ruled my country. But you state that if I merely suggest that a man like that should be overthrown, I'm a criminal?!!

Notice how many times I state the violent overthrow of the government. The peaceful demonstrations that call for the removal of the government authority is protected speech - the speech that advocates violence is not.

There's no room for peaceful demonstrations the moment the leader withdraws the right to demonstrate peacefully. The moment a leader does that he is illegitimate, because he's acting against the constitution. He's an usurper and must be removed as quickly as possible so that the harm he can do can be limited. And it's the duty of every citizen to do what they can to overthrow him. If one man rises against such a man, then it's the duty of all other liberty-loving people of that country to come to his/her aid. By defining clearly when a crime against constitution is committed, people who fight for freedom will know when the time to revolt comes, and will know when the revolt is legitimate and a matter of defending the state and the people of their country. Such things weren't in the constitutions when for example people like Hitler started removing the democratic rights one by one.

Not avoiding the question at all - the answer was given.

No, it was not given. So I ask you again - if someone advocates death penalty against the monsters that child molestors are, would you consider that illegal? Because your opinion stated everywhere else seems to be that you consider any advocation of violence against anyone should be criminal, and punished. A yes or no to answer that question would suffice.

Not at all - its one and the same.

No, it's not the same principle. Your principle says that it's illegal to state that a genocidal dictator like Hitler should be overthrown. Your principle also says it should be illegal to speak in favor of death penalty against child molestors. My principle (which is the one supported by law in most countries) states that advocating the overthrowing of a genocidal dictator is legal, that advocating the overthrowing of a leader who removes fundamental democratic rights of the constitution is legal, and that speaking in favor of death penalty is legal. But hate speech against races, people of a certan religion, and homosexuals, would be illegal.

Oh boy you tried something and now your doing what you have just accused me of. Nicely done.....not.

You seem to be swaying further and further away from the subject at hand.

If you think I have defended Hilter's Nazi government then you have misread everything written. Attempting to play moral equalivancy games does not apply to a discussion of Freedom of Speech.

So you think there shouldn't be equality and that freedom of speech shouldn't be given to everyone? And I'm not thinking you've defended Hitler's nazi government, but I've repeatedly seen that you're saying that Hitler according to your opinion should have had a legal right to carry out genocide and that anyone saying that he should be overthrown for it would be a criminal. That may imply nazi sympathies, but I'm not jumping conclusions.

The fault of not understanding the statement lies in your reading for something that is not there.

Yes of course, all of us who have read your post have failed at understanding your statement, a statement which was very clearly phrased.

Looking for Nazi comparisions is playing a moral equalivency that is very telling.

The nazi comparison has become more and more closely related to this debate. It was first presented as a counter-example to clearly show why your theoretical principle wouldn't work in practise. It has become even more closely related to this discussion after you have repeatedly claimed that overthrowing Hitler, or merely stating the opinion that you thought Hitler should be overthrown, should be illegal in your opinion, and that anyone who would protests by advocating his overthrowing, with violence if necessary, would be a criminal in your eyes. Furthermore you're without any real reason strongly opposed my suggestion that it should be a part of constitution of all countries of the world that a leader who starts genocide should be considered illegitimate and legal to overthrow. Do you seriously think any legitimate leader should have the right to legally carry out genocide? Why do you think that genocide could be a means of defending a country, and something that a leader should be by law allowed to do?

[Redleg]

No, it supports my position, that freedom of speech hasn't hurt anyone, and that many of those problems would have been possible to avoid if freedom of speech had been allowed.

Then you have confused yourself about my statements.

I think you're failing to understand one of the most important concepts of society building. There's indeed morality in wearing a seatbelt or not. Why do you think people have chosen to make not wearing seatbelt illegal? Are you personally for or against the law to wear seatbelts? If you are for it, try to think of why you support it.

I don't support it nor do I support it. There is no morality in the seatbelt law. There is no morality in a jaywalking law (ie only crossing the street in the designate spot.) There are laws that are not based upon morality but upon controlling the population. Jaywalking and seatbelt laws are good exambles of both.

What is it you have against moral equivalency? Do you think different rules should apply to different people? Are you against justice and equal treatment of people before the law?

Moral equivelency does not apply to this discussion. Moral equivalency does not present an arguement about equal justice and treatment of people before the law.

I don't see what significance this has to the matter we're discussing. Could you care to explain why this would make you consider it necessary to have a law that would for example allow Hitler to imprison anyone who advocated the overthrowing of his nazi government when he started building concentration camps?

Its shows the weakness of your attempt of moral equivelency - the German Government under the Weimer Republic did not allow Freedom of Speech.

The advocation of violent overthrow of the established government is illegal in most democratic states. There is no legal right to use violence to overthrow the established authority, there often is a moral reason to do so - but that does not make it legal.

Again you're back at "the constitution should call a leader legitimate even if he starts genocide or change the constitution to remove all democratic rights from it". I don't agree with that point. There are certain lines a leader may not pass if he wishes to remain legitimate (and those lines can be defined as laws in a constitution). Starting genocide is one of the things that make a leader illegitimate. I still fail to understand why you keep stating that the constitution should preserve a leader a right to carry out genocide. There's absolutely no justifiable conditions under which genocide would be needed by any leader unless he's insane.

The advocation of violence against the established authority is not a right - find one constitution of any government that states that its an acceptable standard. Your attempting again to place an idea toward my thoughts that does not exist. Your stuck on moral equivelency and the issue your attempting here does not exist. there is a difference between what is a legal right (only one way legal rights exist - they are in the written form of the government's constitution.) and what is morally correct.

So you again say that a Jew, or German for that part, in nazi Germany had no human right to overthrow Hitler when he started building concentration camps and discussing the "final solution"?

A human right is different from the legal rights under the constitution of the established authority. Again attempting moral equilivency that does not apply to my postion. A legal right has a presedence in the constitution of the nation - a moral duty exists in the soul of the human being.

You're going even further than that - not only would in your eyes a Jew or German in nazi Germany have no right to overthrow Hitler, but he would be a criminal if he merely suggested that Hitler should be overthrown?

Tsk tsk you still fail to understand - your still apply moral equilivency to a statement that is not there.

The jew and german would be a criminal under the laws of the established authority. Just like anyone who advocates the violent overthrow of the established authority in any other land.

That does not imply that they are doing the morally incorrect thing.

In countries who haven't changed their constitution since the Medieval period, such laws might exist. But most of those laws are invalidated and in the process to be removed. There's no reason why advocating the overthrow of a maniac who carries out genocide should be considered a crime, and thereby something that a citizen should have bad conscience over wanting to do. Nothing would have given me - and most other people of this world - a better conscience than overthrowing someone like Hitler if someone like that ruled my country. But you state that if I merely suggest that a man like that should be overthrown, I'm a criminal?!!

No I am stating the advocation of the violent overthrow is considered sedition and most states term that illegal.

The United States has one that tells congress to supress acts of sedition and insurgection - a very loosely worded section of the constition open to several types of interpation. There is also the Sedition Law that was passed latter on.

It seems Australia has revamped its Sedition Law.

Sedition
Subdivision 80.2 of the proposed legislation (as amended) specifically criminalises Urging the overthrow of the Constitution or Government:

(1) A person commits an offence if the person urges another person to overthrow by force or violence:
(a) the Constitution; or
(b) the Government of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or
(c) the lawful authority of the Government of the Commonwealth.

Both of these nations did not have sedition laws from the Medevil period.

There's no room for peaceful demonstrations the moment the leader withdraws the right to demonstrate peacefully. The moment a leader does that he is illegitimate, because he's acting against the constitution. He's an usurper and must be removed as quickly as possible so that the harm he can do can be limited. And it's the duty of every citizen to do what they can to overthrow him. If one man rises against such a man, then it's the duty of all other liberty-loving people of that country to come to his/her aid. By defining clearly when a crime against constitution is committed, people who fight for freedom will know when the time to revolt comes, and will know when the revolt is legitimate and a matter of defending the state and the people of their country. Such things weren't in the constitutions when for example people like Hitler started removing the democratic rights one by one.

Now your getting the picture.

A illegimate government needs to be overthrown by the people. However until they are successful they are committing a criminal act against the established authority. The leader has created a constitutional crisis when he removed the right to peaceful demonstration. As states several times before when the government no longer serves the people's best interest the people will revolt.

What you are describing here is a moral obligation of the people - not necessarily a legal right. The advocation of violent overthrow of the established authority is not a legal right. You are only painting the picture of a government that has gone terribily wrong. In your attempt to paint a moral equilevency - you are forgetting that there are always individuals who advocate the violent overthrow of the government to bring forth just a type of dictorship.

I could mention several groups in the United States that would advocate violent overthrow of the established authority so that they could do just the activities that would destroy a nation's society.

Its a fine line - the advocation of violence against the established authority is not a legal right - it only becomes a moral obligation of the people when the government no longer serves the best interests of the people.

No, it was not given. So I ask you again - if someone advocates death penalty against the monsters that child molestors are, would you consider that illegal? Because your opinion stated everywhere else seems to be that you consider any advocation of violence against anyone should be criminal, and punished. A yes or no to answer that question would suffice.

Yes they should if they are violating the law.

The death penelty is within the legal statutes of the justice system in the United States. Moral equilivency does not apply to the different types of discussion.

The advocation of violence - mob rule - against the individual is wrong and sometimes the individuals who commit such an act are arrested and charged.

No, it's not the same principle. Your principle says that it's illegal to state that a genocidal dictator like Hitler should be overthrown. Your principle also says it should be illegal to speak in favor of death penalty against child molestors. My principle (which is the one supported by law in most countries) states that advocating the overthrowing of a genocidal dictator is legal, that advocating the overthrowing of a leader who removes fundamental democratic rights of the constitution is legal, and that speaking in favor of death penalty is legal. But hate speech against races, people of a certan religion, and homosexuals, would be illegal.

Incorrect - the principle is that its completely correct and legal for those who disagree with the government can and should protest against the government and ask for the removal from office through the political system of that leader. ( A point you seem to fail to understand)

Same principle competely - the difference is that you advocate that the calling for the violent overthrow of the government is legal speech, a principle that you have yet to show being an actuality in any state.

You seem to be swaying further and further away from the subject at hand.

A comment on this latter.

So you think there shouldn't be equality and that freedom of speech shouldn't be given to everyone? And I'm not thinking you've defended Hitler's nazi government, but I've repeatedly seen that you're saying that Hitler according to your opinion should have had a legal right to carry out genocide and that anyone saying that he should be overthrown for it would be a criminal. That may imply nazi sympathies, but I'm not jumping conclusions.

You are misreading once again. I did not state any such thing. Look at your above statement about swaying futher and further away for the topic.

Yes of course, all of us who have read your post have failed at understanding your statement, a statement which was very clearly phrased.

Yes indeed it was - the advocation of the violent overthrow of the government. Pretty darn clear when you read all the words.

The nazi comparison has become more and more closely related to this debate. It was first presented as a counter-example to clearly show why your theoretical principle wouldn't work in practise. It has become even more closely related to this discussion after you have repeatedly claimed that overthrowing Hitler, or merely stating the opinion that you thought Hitler should be overthrown, should be illegal in your opinion, and that anyone who would protests by advocating his overthrowing, with violence if necessary, would be a criminal in your eyes. Furthermore you're without any real reason strongly opposed my suggestion that it should be a part of constitution of all countries of the world that a leader who starts genocide should be considered illegitimate and legal to overthrow. Do you seriously think any legitimate leader should have the right to legally carry out genocide? Why do you think that genocide could be a means of defending a country, and something that a leader should be by law allowed to do?

Again you have misread and most likely your attempting to raise an emotional response form me.

Legal rights under the consitution and the moral obligation of a human being are often two different things.

The bold statement is incorrect - but nice try. If this is the course you wish to take in the discussion then there is no futher need to continue. I clearly stated that there should not be included in the constitution the legal right to use violence to remove the established authority - however that is nothing along the lines of the statement you just tried here.

A legal right to commit violence against the state does not exist. A moral obligation to remove by any means a leader you has become illegimate does exist, but one must understand that until it is accomplished that they are violating the law of the state.

A legal right to advocate violence against the state also allows groups like the Aryan Nations to use violence to remove the established authority.