What is Freedom Of Speech ?

[Redleg]

Hm let me get this straight. You say that an opinion expressed is the same as yours, and the same as mine, while not being the same as mine, and that our opinions contradict each other, and that I'm contradicting my interpretation of your words?

The difference soley lies in that my statement states there is no legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority. The contradiction lies that you continue to believe my statements mean other then what it express states there.

That's a very racistical and derogatory thought. The German people wanted better economy and revenge for Versailles, and their only alternatives were communists, who promised poverty and no revenge for Versailles. It's a lie to ay that the German people wanted mass executions of dissenters and later a Holocaust of Jews, Gypsies, handicapped, mentally ill and other arbitrarily chosen groups, as well as a war with the Soviets, a war in the Balkans, a war in North Africa, and eventually their own destruction through carpet bombing of most major German cities. The disaster with Hitler was mostly a case of society structure failing. It was impossible for the Germans to get what they wanted without getting the extra madness Hitler wanted, and that he hid in his propaganda until after he got elected and by scare tactics had removed freedom of speech, so nobody dared saying what they really thought.

Again Hilter rose to power because the German people wanted him in power. That does not mean they expected him to do the things that he did, but his promises got him into power, and he maintained that power because the people never rose against him. Again you misread what is written to believe what you wish it to believe.

A very telling point begins to arise from your consistent desire to compare everything to Hilter and his regime.

The court and the government are different powers. The government has a right to pass laws, not to imprison people who break the laws - that's the task of the courts. Anything else centralizes power in a way close to dictatorship. Neither USA nor any other country trying to be democratic is unifying them into one, as it goes against democratic principles.

THere are three branches of government - the judicial branch, the legislative branch, and the executive branch.

Please show where I have ignored Gandhi. If I recall it correctly I've taken the Gandhi example into account at least 10 times in my posts above. However, you simply deny the consequences of your statements, indirectly defending Hitler's illegitimate government and calling it legitimate. If that isn't what you're intending to say, then you should think twice about the practical consequences of your theoretical level statement.

Calling it lucky does not count as taking it into account. Gandi's efforts was legimate use of free speech.

It is you who continues to incorrectly apply my opinion to your Hilter anology.

No, a government which breaks the constitutional law by carrying out genocide or removing democratic rights is illegitimate, thus it's legal according to the constitutional law to overthrow it, and at the very least allowed to state an opinion that you think the government should be overthrown.

For the uptenth time - the stating of the opinion that the government should be overthrown by peaceful means is legimate free speech. the stating that the government should be overthrow by violent means is not protected.

Most dictators would call themselves realists. Stalin called himself a realist for executing all anti-communists - after all with the heavy opposition mass executions and terror were the only way to maintain stalinism in USSR. There's no law in a democratic society which is used to control people. Jaywalking comes from the fact that we don't think it's morally right to expose the drivers of having to expect a pedestrian crossing the roads anywhere - it would put too much pressure and responsibility on the drivers. Traffic laws come from the fact that there must be a moral rule as to who drives first, who is obliged to stop and check, etc., so that it's already predefined whose fault it is when an accident happens. If there would be no traffic laws, then all would just call the other driver guilty if an accident happened. And we consider it morally wrong to run over someone, or kill someone by crashing into their car with an own car. Therefore we make sure the traffic rules clearly state who's guilty before the accident happens. The only laws in history that have ever been used for controlling people are laws such as the nazi law that all Jews would wear badges. Such laws are not desireable in a modern democratic society.

The comparision is mote. I am not in a postion of political power. attempts such as your comparision here continue to be nothing more then moral relativity.

Again even democratic societies have laws that are in place to control the people.

so it's allowed if someone advocates the non-violent overthrow of a legitimate leader which hasn't broken constitutional law?

That is consistent with what I have been saying this whole thread.

Exactly, and if it would have been illegal to discuss it then it would have hurt democracy in the USA, wouldn't it?

Not at all - the legality of the death penelty is always open to discussion.
When one calls for the spefic death of an individual outside of the legal system then that borders on a criminal act. And is often prosecuted under the conspricary to commit murder charge.....

Big contradition

The contradiction is in your efforts in stating that the advocation of the violent overthrow of the government is protect speech.

They do indeed exist, within what's the nation. An illegitimate government isn't part of the nation. Until a new government has been formed, the nation is government-less for a while under those circumstances.

You are incorrect - constitutional law does not exist under a dictorship. It seems you are acknowledging my main point without realization that you are doing so. Government-less means constitution-less. Governments gain their right to power in a democratic society from the Constitution.

I never debated his skills, which were great, but merely stated that the regime he happened to try to overthrow was a regime in a historical period where his methods were applicable. Non-violent protests wouldn't have worked too well in nazi Germany for instance.

And Gandi's efforts worked - so in essence it proves the point that the advocation of the violent overthrow of the government is not a needed legal right, the efforts of Gandi and Martin Luther King Jr, prove this point ambly.

So the moment someone says everyone should be morally and legally treated equally, a discussion becomes pointless? Am I only allowed to say that some people are better than others and should have special treatment? Or that some people are undesireables that should be killed? Because you keep stating that morality and legality shouldn't be equivalent to all.

When you try to compare a simple statement of there is no legal right to the advocation of the violent overthrow of the established authority to supporting nazi germany - then you have committed the pointless discussion.

And again that is your interpation of my statements. Morality is not equivalent to all - given the discussion around the death penality and abortion, you yourself have demonstrated this point very well.

Legality should be equal to all - but its not. THere is no legal reason for the government to include as a law the legal right to commit violence because you disagree with the government.

When you approached the discussion that the statement that Freedom of Speech does not entitle one to advocate the violent overthrow of the government is the same as supporting Nazi Germany - you yourself demonstrate that you don't interpate the statements correctly and that you are indeed not applying moral equalivency in the way that you believe you are. Misreading what is stated to mean something other then what it expressily states - demonstrates that point very well. Several times I have stated one is protected under Free Speech to advocate the removal of a political leader. One is even allowed to advocate the overthrow of a government by peaceful means. You have consistently misread the point that the violent overthrow of the established authority into something else.


Moral equalivency and moral relativity has been your main focus. The statement itself has nothing to do with supporting Nazi Germany or Hilter.
However feel free to believe it does - it demonstrates that Free Speech exists regardless of your opinion on it.