What is Freedom Of Speech ?

[Redleg]

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.

Not at all - they never rose up because they did not have the moral courage to do so.

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.

And again you have misread and misinterpated the statements to mean what you want them to mean. If your wanting to on-purpose misunderstand statements that is your fault not mine.

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.

Again you are incorrect. You have not pointed out where my statements have the consequence of allowing Hilter to gain power. You have on purpose ignored the context of violent.

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.

Homework requires one to have been given an assignment. You still continue to attempt insults because of your failure to understand the arguement. Sort of like your continueing to use Hilter in a context that was never stated.

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?

Your own racism is beginning to show. The right to violence does not exist. Gandi used peaceful means to overthrow the government - which is consistent with what I have been stating. It seems that since you can not find away to defeat the arguement of that postion you again are resorting to attempt to use ad hominem arguements. Good show.

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.

Under the government that is in control that is correct. Moral obligation to remove a dictatorship does not make it a legal right. If you believe it to be a legal right - then you by default must support the United States allying itself with the Northern Alliance to remove the Taliban. You must by default also support the removing of Saddam by any means necessary to include a foreign power doing so.

If you going to continue playing the moral equilevency and moral relativity game - be consistent with it - otherwise your postion is false.

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?

Again laws exist for more then moral reasons. ie again abortion and the death penality laws are prime exambles. I wonder why you hate democracy and freedom so much that you feel it necessary to attack others with allegations of racism where none exists? Rather humorous in a sad way.

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?

The use of a gun makes it a violent act - Gandi did indeed have a legimate government removed by peaceful means - it seems you still fail to realize that point.

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

Try reading the statement again

Are you saying that these things should in your opinion be illegal and punished by law:
- overthrowing an illegitimate government

If your attempt is unsuccessful you will be charged.

- stating your opinion that an illegitimate usurper government that carries out genocide and removes democratic rights

One can state their non-violent opinion in a democratic and peaceful society.

- discussing in academic circles when a leader becomes illegitimate and must be overthrown

If they do not advocate the violent overthrowning of the government there is no crime. However if the government is illegitmate my thoughts won't count worth anything. Again attempts at moral equailivency and moral relativity do not work.

- 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 can discuss hypothethecial scenerios all day long - until you advocate the violent overthrow of the present established authority - then it becomes a matter of legality based upon the constitution of the land.

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.

The constitutions of the occupied lands did not exist in the occupied lands - constitutional law in Germany no longer existed when the German people allowed Hilter to gain dictatorship.

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.

government-less means constitutional-less. Dictatorships have a law all onto themselves that is what makes them despots. If the people do not have the moral courage to remove the dictatorship the legal right does not matter. If a dictator takes charge of the nation the people have the moral obligation to remove him - however until they are successful they don't have the legal right to do so.

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.

The ability to speak freely that the government is doing wrong is what makes the process work. The ability to advocate that the government is wrong and must change course is what makes the system work. The advocation and use of violence to violentily overthrow the government does not work. Lenin and crew came into power from a rebellion to overthrow the established authority which had become repressive. Pol Pot came to power with a rebellion to overthrow the established authority. You still playing at the moral equilivency and moral relativity game without maintaining a consistent approach in doing so.

The advocation of the peaceful removal of a government authority is protected speech. The advocation of the violent removal of the government authority is not protected speech.

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?

Why do you hate people who have different opinions then yourself?

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.

Then I suggest you go back and read what I have written versus amusing it means what you believe it to mean. The legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority does not exist - nor should it exist in law. It is a moral act of the people - when the government has gone terribily wrong.

and again read what is written - for the uptenth time. The advocation of the overthrow of the government by peaceful means is allowed speech. The advocation of the violent overthrow of the established authority is not protected speech. It seems you continue to misread the statements to mean something else.

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.

Again try reading the statements - I have never stated I am opposed to the concept that its protected speech to advocate the removal of a government official, I have never stated that I am opposed to the concept that advocating the overthrow of the government by peaceful means is protected speech.

What I have stated is that the advocation of the violent overthrow of the established authority is not protected speech. The whole discussion has been centered around your misunderstanding of the statement and your attempts of moral equilevency and moral relativity because of your misunderstanding of what is written.