What is Freedom Of Speech ?

[Rodion Romanovich]

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.

They never rose against him because it was considered illegal according to people like you. Those who protested felt ashamed and is if they did something wrong. Because people like you wanted constitutional law that would call for the blood of whoever advocated the overthrow of even an illegitimate, genocidal, anti-democratic government.

Again you misread what is written to believe what you wish it to believe.

It's you who want to believe that some people are undesirable and less worth than others. I can see it shining through in all parts of your expressed opinion.

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

I've not compared anything to Hitler. I've pointed out a single of your statements and what consequences it would have in a case such as the one where Hitler got to power. A single instance is hardly "everything", neither is a synthesis a comparison.

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

Wow, good you passed your homework now maybe you can try to draw some conclusions from the knowledge and try to understand it's practical consequences.

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.

But you keep saying that overthrowing Hitler should in your opinion have been illegal but that Gandhi was allowed to overthrow the British rulers in India. Has this inconsistency got something to do with your liking for Indo-Europeans and Aryans over others?

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.

A government which removes democratic rights and breaks the constitutional law has deposed of the real government they themselves once were, and are this criminals. But you keep saying that anyone who advocates the overthrow of a government which becomes illegitimate by breaking constitutional law, removes democratic rights, or starts genocide, should in your opinion be sentenced as a criminal.

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

We don't, that's the very idea of democracy and freedom. Why do you hate democracy? Why do you want to deny people of their freedom?

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

So you may remove a legitimate government from power if you do it without violence? By, say, holding up a gun in his face and telling him to follow you and be kidnapped without doing any resistance?

If it would have been illegal to discuss [death penalty] then it would have hurt democracy in the USA, wouldn't it?

Not at all

So you're saying that people shouldn't be allowed to discuss death penalty in the USA?

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

Are you saying that these things should in your opinion be illegal and punished by law:
- overthrowing an illegitimate government
- stating your opinion that an illegitimate usurper government that carries out genocide and removes democratic rights
- discussing in academic circles when a leader becomes illegitimate and must be overthrown
- discussing when a leader who removes one democratic right after another has passed the point when it's necessary to overthrow him, even if there's no intent to overthrow him at present, but in a future situation

You are incorrect - constitutional law does not exist under a dictorship.

Constitutional law continue to exist, just like legitimate governments may continue to exist during dictatorship. After Poland was occupied by the nazis in ww2, there was a legitimate Polish exile government. Similarly there were French, Norwegian, Danish and many other legitimate governments in exile. The constitution still applied. The local rulers of these countries were illegitimate usurpers and criminals who were breaking the constitutional law.

Government-less means constitution-less.

Not necessarily, unless the people start thinking that the usurper dictator is the legitimate leader, which he isn't, because he broke the constitutional law and is a criminal.

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.

Gandhi was thrown in prison. Martin Luther King was shot. None of these men succeeded personally, only politically, because people were too scared to follow them enough, support them enough, because they felt ashamed to break racistical and oppressive constitutional laws they believed existed, even in the cases when they didn't (for instance Martin Luther King didn't break a constitutional law, however Gandhi did break the oppressive usurper constitution). The belief that it's illegal to overthrow an illegal oppressive government is what makes people so scared of overthrowing it. People are drilled from birth to not break the law. A constitution which allows the advocation of overthrowing illegitimate usurper governments tends to more easily give the people enough bravery to seek freedom, earlier in the process, before the mad dictators have time to kill so many people.

Morality is not equivalent to all

All should be treated equally by whatever moral rules and laws that we democratically together decide to build our society on. But the opinion on what laws and moral values that should ideally exist in the society varies between people. That doesn't mean people don't deserve to be treated equally before the law, and have justice and freedom. Why do you hate justice and equivalence in moral and law?

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.

Which I never said either. I said that a government that becomes illegitimate by breaking the constitutional law by removing democratic rights and carrying out genocide should be allowed to overthrow. At the very least it should be allowed to state an opinion that you would like it if that government were overthrown, but you're opposing that too. You think people should be scared to state their opinion that such a government should be overthrown, and you think they should be imprisoned.

[QUOTE=Redleg]The statement itself has nothing to do with supporting Nazi Germany or Hilter.
However feel free to believe it doesQUOTE]
Well, if you have finally changed your opinion and agree that it should be in the constitution of all countries a legal right to speak in favor of overthrowing (and a legal right to also do overthrow) an illegitimate government that removes democratic rights, breaks constitutional law and carries out genocide, then you finally agree with me, and we don't need to carry this discussion any further.