What is Freedom Of Speech ?

[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.

[Xiahou]

I don't think the act will be upheld if it is ever challenged. On its face it seems unconstitutional and should generate sometime in the near future a constitutional crisis.

However most Judges do not want their decisions questioned either - so they will most likely indeed rule in favor of such a restriction of speech in the political process.

Sadly, it was upheld by the SCOTUS back in 2003. Of course, it was the usual suspects + O'Connor that made the majority of the 5-4 split in favor of wiping their asses with the Constitution. Since then, O'Connor has been replaced by Alito- so we might hope for a better result if it somehow gets brought before the courts again.

[Redleg]

Sadly, it was upheld by the SCOTUS back in 2003. Of course, it was the usual suspects + O'Connor that made the majority of the 5-4 split in favor of wiping their asses with the Constitution. Since then, O'Connor has been replaced by Alito- so we might hope for a better result if it somehow gets brought before the courts again.

It will just require an individual to go in front of the courts again I believe. This is where the ACLU could make some money with many - bringing these type of Freedom of Speech issues back into the limelight of thier organization.

[Soulforged]

A direct causation is not a causal relationship.

Care to demonstrate your tesis?

Sedition is an act against the established government. Liberalists and sedition does not necessarily go hand and hand. One can be a liberal without advocating the violent overthrow of the established authority.

Never said that. And you said that "not necessarily". Not all principles of liberalism are respected, many are restricted, many are restricted with out reason, I think this exception made by sedition is not unreasonable looking at it from the point of view of the state, I just don't like it, call it philosophic intuition.

Must be you - the cause is the speech - using the word Fire when there is no fire.

And what about saying the word fire when there's fire? Anyway, that's pointless.... What you've to measure here is what's the probability of a disaster happening when saying such things, and even then there's no crime unless there's an actual disaster or some person injured at least.

Civil cases more to point is between individuals who have a disagreement. Slander is a civil case, based upon a public utterance.

Exactly.

The American Civil War. I don't even have to use a hypothecial situation. There is no sedition speech currently that I know of in the United States that is prosecutable by the United States Government. Sedition speech requires the advocation of force to remove the established authority.

But what would constitute sedition right now? Is for example the advocation in a TV show "sedition"? The example of theather is also pretty good... What's sedition following the interpretation of the american courts? By the way you gave even a better example with the Whisky Rebellion, I liked it, it demonstrated your point quite well, but everything changes with time, and I'm talking about an alternative interpretation that might or might not be inferred for the Constitution of your country or the republican or liberalist principles in general that many other countries uphold in general.

Of course because Sedition is not considered covered under the 1st Ammendment which is often refered to as Freedom of Speech.

So you don't make any difference between advocation of sedition and sedition?

Then you were not listening.

Yes I were. "It will have the same effect - hate speech is in the preception of the reciever not your intent. The power of the spoken word still exists regardless of your attempt to equate it to "magic."" Is there a causal relationship considering the response? For example you shoot another person with a gun, the cause of the injure or the death is the shot, it's like when we had that discussion about drugs and causation.

Incorrect - I am speaking of a concept that goes way beyond the law but into how an individual acts. With Freedom comes responsibility is a concept that means you have a responsiblity to your fellow man to exercise your Freedoms in a reasonable manner.

Then it's deligence. Fair enough. However not all moral obligations to your fellow man are reasonabily translated into laws. Also how is that a menace of overthrowing the state hurts your fellowman? The menace is directed to the state, not the society. And add to that the fact that under an opressive government you might be very well aiding your fellow man, not hurting him.

Anyway Red, I think that, as I said we've axiological disagreements on this one, so let's agree to disagree.

[Redleg]

Care to demonstrate your tesis?

Its been demonstrated several times in reality. Just go into a crowded theather or club and yell fire - and see it happens.

Never said that. And you said that "not necessarily". Not all principles of liberalism are respected, many are restricted, many are restricted with out reason, I think this exception made by sedition is not unreasonable looking at it from the point of view of the state, I just don't like it, call it philosophic intuition.

A valid viewpoint

And what about saying the word fire when there's fire? Anyway, that's pointless.... What you've to measure here is what's the probability of a disaster happening when saying such things, and even then there's no crime unless there's an actual disaster or some person injured at least.

Not exactly - there is no crime if the fire is reality - the crime happens when their is no fire.

But what would constitute sedition right now? Is for example the advocation in a TV show "sedition"? The example of theather is also pretty good...

A television show is not reality for the most part - so I would not make a judgement based upon anything on the televsion.

What's sedition following the interpretation of the american courts? By the way you gave even a better example with the Whisky Rebellion, I liked it, it demonstrated your point quite well, but everything changes with time, and I'm talking about an alternative interpretation that might or might not be inferred for the Constitution of your country or the republican or liberalist principles in general that many other countries uphold in general.

Not much time tonight to go in detail on that question - will get back to it later.

So you don't make any difference between advocation of sedition and sedition?

Sedition is sedition.

Yes I were. "It will have the same effect - hate speech is in the preception of the reciever not your intent. The power of the spoken word still exists regardless of your attempt to equate it to "magic."" Is there a causal relationship considering the response? For example you shoot another person with a gun, the cause of the injure or the death is the shot, it's like when we had that discussion about drugs and causation.

The cause of the death is the individual who used the weapon - not the shot.

Then it's deligence. Fair enough. However not all moral obligations to your fellow man are reasonabily translated into laws. Also how is that a menace of overthrowing the state hurts your fellowman? The menace is directed to the state, not the society. And add to that the fact that under an opressive government you might be very well aiding your fellow man, not hurting him.

Correct that is why the concept of Freedom of Speech creates so many dilimia's (SP) for people. It is an ethical concept open to several different interpations. My viewpoint is not necessarily correct - but neither is it necessarily wrong. Rights are tangible ideas for the most part - where the cutoff between what is allowable (SP) free speech and what is not is determined not only by the society but the state. Hince we go back to my opening thought in this discussion.

Anyway Red, I think that, as I said we've axiological disagreements on this one, so let's agree to disagree.

If you seperate the matter of sedition and the advocation of sedition from the discussion - you will most likely discover that our viewpoints are the same on Freedom of Speech.

But to give you another examble of why the spoken word has power - the concept of Freedom of Speech demonstrates it very well. Without Free Speech there is no Free Society. That is why the individual who desires to have Freedom of Speech must exercise that Freedom with responsiblity.

[Soulforged]

If you seperate the matter of sedition and the advocation of sedition from the discussion - you will most likely discover that our viewpoints are the same on Freedom of Speech.

Let's leave it at that then.

[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.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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.

These offenses mean:
a. the person goes against the constitution. If a leader removes democratic rights he's illegitimate and by law allowed to overthrow.
b. the government of the Commonwealth, that means as long as the government acts in the interest of the common good. If it begins genocide it's no longer a legitimate government, and juridically allowed to overthrow
c. if you say that the courts no longer have a right to prosecute people. Again, this assumes the leader hasn't tried to remove the democratic rights or has gone against the common good, in which case he has already become legitimate to overthrow.

This law is just confirming exactly what I've been saying

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.

If he goes against the constitution and removes the democratic rights he becomes illegitimate. So it's no just morally, but also legally justified, to overthrow him in that situation. That's what the current law you quoted above says, for instance. As for what the law should ideally be saying - it's exactly that - a leader who goes against the constitution and removes the democratic rights, starts genocide or similar, becomes illegitimate and legally allowed to be overthrown, because he's no longer the established authority, but an usurper.

But for some reason you keep saying that you don't think it should be legal to overthrow someone who goes against the constitution by removing democratic rights or starting genocide. That goes against the opinion of most democratic countries today.

The advocation of violent overthrow of the established authority is not a legal right.

It's no longer established authority or a legimitate government if it removes democratic rights, because in order to do so it must go against the constitution. Starting genocide is also against the constitution and makes the government illegitimate.

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.

Can you mention a single case were someone being allowed to speak in favor of overthrowing a government was crucial to his success in overthrowing it? Revolts don't gain massive popular support unless they're against a corrupt regime. Furthermore, if people are allowed to speak in favor of overthrowing a regime, it'll be clear at an early stage when a government is exceeding it's authority, so that it may be given a chance to correct itself. The government is not in place to oppress and control the people, but to protect the people and grant them their rights, safety and if it can - prosperity, living standards and justice. There's no "king by the grace of God". The leader is in place because the people desires, and only for as long as they desire. If the leader runs amok and starts genocide or removes democratic rights, people may advocate the overthrowing of him to give him a chance to leave his position peacefully and alive. The alternative is to be silent for a long time and then backstab him without forewarning. A leader should be thankful for the honor and justice that lies within free speech criticising his regime, and the valuable information it gives him that makes him able to improve himself. If you're not allowed to discuss when it becomes necessary to overthrow a leader that's gradually turning more and more cracy, how can the leader see the difference between the usual complaints about high taxes, and the extreme discontent against a leader going nuts?

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.

Mention one group that would succeed in overthrowing the government just because they were alloeed freedom of speech, but would fail otherwise.

Its a fine line - the advocation of violence against the established authority [...] becomes a moral obligation of the people when the government no longer serves the best interests of the people.

Finally you're getting a hang of some of the principles.

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.

Considering how your theoretical principle was phrased, this moderate and sensible view comes as a pleasant surprise. You do understand that your initial statement was so vague and inprecise that the interpretation I made is the one that lies closest at hand? You must realize the importance of exact phrasings and definitions when making laws - it's both a matter of making the judges able to interpret the law as it was intended, and a matter of allowing for an as strict interpretation as possible of the text so that all may be treated equally and objectively rather than subjectively and arbitrarily by the law.

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

This is what I've said. But what I've also said, that you keep saying is wrong, is that the moment the leader breaks the constitutional laws by removing democratic rights or carrying out genocide or similar, the leader becomes an illegitimate usurper and should IMO be overthrown. The law example you posted also confirms that it's not sedition to advocate the overthrowing of a leader that has broken the constitutional law by carrying out genocide. To go back to the example:
- I'm stating that assuming Weimar Republic had had my constitution, the moment Hitler removed the democratic rights and carried out genocide he became illegitimate, thus it then became legal to overthrow him.
- Your opinion is that if Hitler breaks the constitutional law by removing democratic rights and carrying out genocide, a good constitution should still make him legitimate leader after that, and that law should be written so that anyone who advocated the overthrowing of Hitler should be considered a criminal and punished.

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.

I'll state my opinion again: if a leader passes a certain line by removing democratic rights that are part of the constitutional law, or starts genocide, that leader is no longer legitimate, and it's both legally and morally allowed to both overthrow him, and advocate the overthrowing of him, according to constitutional law. A constitutional law of that kind only makes it legal to overthrow a leader that is already nuts, like Hitler, but doesn't allow the overthrowing of a normal leader. The only conditions under which a leader is legal to overthrow, is when he's broken the constitutional law. To also allow people to speak in favor of overthrowing the leader makes it possible for the leader that has broken the constitutional law to resign peacefully, rather than forcing the people to kill him to get rid of him. That's a law that is in the interest of both the leaders and the people.

Now your opinion is that overthrowing a mad leader like Hitler should be punished, and that anyone who merely said "I think Hitler should be overthrown", should be considered a criminal and punished according to the system you're supporting, a system which also happens to go against the common ideas of most modern constitutions of democratic countries.

Please tell me what it is you consider so dangerous about a legal right to overthrow a leader that has become a genocidal dictator and has broken the constitutional law? Why do you think leaders should be legally allowed to stay in office even if they've broken the constitutional law, for example by starting genocide? Do you seriously think genocide would ever serve the interests of your nation?

[Lord Winter]

A legal right to commit violence against the state does not exist.

I quote from addmendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

and from the declaration of independence

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

Saying that the people have no right to abolish there governments in a last resort to restore freedom is going against almost all the ideas our government was founded on. Just because it is not listed in the constitution does not mean that the people have no right to it.

[Redleg]

These offenses mean:
a. the person goes against the constitution. If a leader removes democratic rights he's illegitimate and by law allowed to overthrow.
b. the government of the Commonwealth, that means as long as the government acts in the interest of the common good. If it begins genocide it's no longer a legitimate government, and juridically allowed to overthrow
c. if you say that the courts no longer have a right to prosecute people. Again, this assumes the leader hasn't tried to remove the democratic rights or has gone against the common good, in which case he has already become legitimate to overthrow.

This law is just confirming exactly what I've been saying

Just like it confirms what I have stated. You might want to review the whole thing and what the Australian press has stated about it.

If he goes against the constitution and removes the democratic rights he becomes illegitimate. So it's no just morally, but also legally justified, to overthrow him in that situation. That's what the current law you quoted above says, for instance. As for what the law should ideally be saying - it's exactly that - a leader who goes against the constitution and removes the democratic rights, starts genocide or similar, becomes illegitimate and legally allowed to be overthrown, because he's no longer the established authority, but an usurper.

Your getting close - the legality however only works if the rebellion against the established authority is accomplished.

But for some reason you keep saying that you don't think it should be legal to overthrow someone who goes against the constitution by removing democratic rights or starting genocide. That goes against the opinion of most democratic countries today.

Again your not paying attention - to what was written. The legality exists with the established authority. Until its accomplished all you have is a moral duty.

It's no longer established authority or a legimitate government if it removes democratic rights, because in order to do so it must go against the constitution. Starting genocide is also against the constitution and makes the government illegitimate.

That was not your initial arguement - nor was it mine - the legality of your actions is based upon the government. The moral duty is something else. You again attempting a moral equilevency that I refuse to play into.

Can you mention a single case were someone being allowed to speak in favor of overthrowing a government was crucial to his success in overthrowing it? Revolts don't gain massive popular support unless they're against a corrupt regime. Furthermore, if people are allowed to speak in favor of overthrowing a regime, it'll be clear at an early stage when a government is exceeding it's authority, so that it may be given a chance to correct itself. The government is not in place to oppress and control the people, but to protect the people and grant them their rights, safety and if it can - prosperity, living standards and justice. There's no "king by the grace of God". The leader is in place because the people desires, and only for as long as they desire. If the leader runs amok and starts genocide or removes democratic rights, people may advocate the overthrowing of him to give him a chance to leave his position peacefully and alive. The alternative is to be silent for a long time and then backstab him without forewarning. A leader should be thankful for the honor and justice that lies within free speech criticising his regime, and the valuable information it gives him that makes him able to improve himself. If you're not allowed to discuss when it becomes necessary to overthrow a leader that's gradually turning more and more cracy, how can the leader see the difference between the usual complaints about high taxes, and the extreme discontent against a leader going nuts?

Maybe you should ask yourself does any nation allow the advocation of violence to overthrow the established government?

Protests and demonstrations - peaceful dissent - gives the leadership the idea that his policies are not in line with the interests of the people.

Mention one group that would succeed in overthrowing the government just because they were alloeed freedom of speech, but would fail otherwise.

Maybe you should mention one group of dissents that were able to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority. Gandi advocated the overthrow of the British in India - not through violence but through peaceful protest.

Finally you're getting a hang of some of the principles.

I had it all along - the statement is consistent with what I have been stating all along.

Here read it again - 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.

Notice carefully the words used - not a legal right - a moral obligation. I seperate legal from moral when it concerns rights and freedoms. Not all states have the same legal rights - but all men have the same moral obligations.

Considering how your theoretical principle was phrased, this moderate and sensible view comes as a pleasant surprise. You do understand that your initial statement was so vague and inprecise that the interpretation I made is the one that lies closest at hand? You must realize the importance of exact phrasings and definitions when making laws - it's both a matter of making the judges able to interpret the law as it was intended, and a matter of allowing for an as strict interpretation as possible of the text so that all may be treated equally and objectively rather than subjectively and arbitrarily by the law.

Maybe its not my language but your understanding of what I am saying. The terms I used make perfect sense to me. certain clear cut terms were used - such as the violent overthrow being one of them.

This is what I've said. But what I've also said, that you keep saying is wrong, is that the moment the leader breaks the constitutional laws by removing democratic rights or carrying out genocide or similar, the leader becomes an illegitimate usurper and should IMO be overthrown. The law example you posted also confirms that it's not sedition to advocate the overthrowing of a leader that has broken the constitutional law by carrying out genocide. To go back to the example:

I say it wrong - a matter of opinion not fact. Again show where one national law advocates the violent overthrow of the established authority.

- I'm stating that assuming Weimar Republic had had my constitution, the moment Hitler removed the democratic rights and carried out genocide he became illegitimate, thus it then became legal to overthrow him.

The Weimer Republic did not have your constitution - it had its own. This is why I don't engage in moral equilevency.

- Your opinion is that if Hitler breaks the constitutional law by removing democratic rights and carrying out genocide, a good constitution should still make him legitimate leader after that, and that law should be written so that anyone who advocated the overthrowing of Hitler should be considered a criminal and punished.

My view is that the people do not have a legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority. They have the legal right to protest, advocate peaceful means of removing the authority, and to speak their minds about that leaders actions.


Once the established authority no longer serves the best interest of the people - the people have the moral obligation to remove him from office. The advocation of violence puts them against the established authority. In this case the legal issue is second to the moral issue. The action of advocating violence against the established authority breaks the legal code - but not the moral obligation of the people.

Attempting to place moral equilevency has caused you to misinterpate and spin my statement to something you wish to believe they mean.


[quot]
I'll state my opinion again: if a leader passes a certain line by removing democratic rights that are part of the constitutional law, or starts genocide, that leader is no longer legitimate, and it's both legally and morally allowed to both overthrow him, and advocate the overthrowing of him, according to constitutional law. A constitutional law of that kind only makes it legal to overthrow a leader that is already nuts, like Hitler, but doesn't allow the overthrowing of a normal leader. The only conditions under which a leader is legal to overthrow, is when he's broken the constitutional law. To also allow people to speak in favor of overthrowing the leader makes it possible for the leader that has broken the constitutional law to resign peacefully, rather than forcing the people to kill him to get rid of him. That's a law that is in the interest of both the leaders and the people.[/quote]

Again advocation of the violent overthrow of the established authority is not a legal right - nor is the actual act. It can and often is a moral obligation but its not a legal right.

Now your opinion is that overthrowing a mad leader like Hitler should be punished, and that anyone who merely said "I think Hitler should be overthrown", should be considered a criminal and punished according to the system you're supporting, a system which also happens to go against the common ideas of most modern constitutions of democratic countries.

You still don't have an idea what my opinion is. Legally if the plotting of the overthrow of the established authority and the conduct of the established authority is against the law. It can be the moral correct thing to do - but guess what - you still haven't shown a constitution that allows the violent overthrow of the government. I know of two that use the words that its against the legal code.

Again the Austrialian law

Seditious Intention
The definition of "seditious intention" originally in Section 24A has become (as amended):

An intention to use force or violence to effect any of the following purposes:

(a) to bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt;
(b) to urge disaffection against the following:
(i) the Constitution;
(ii) the Government of the Commonwealth;
(iii) either House of the Parliament;
(c) to urge another person to attempt, otherwise than by lawful means, to procure a change to any matter established by law in the Commonwealth;
(d) to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so as to threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.
[edit]
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.
Similarly, it introduces the offence of [urging] another person to interfere by force or violence with lawful processes for an election of a member or members of a House of the Parliament, and Urging violence within the community:

(a) the person urges a group or groups (whether distinguished by race, religion, nationality or political opinion) to use force or violence against another group or other groups (as so distinguished); and
(b) the use of the force or violence would threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.
Additionally, it is now specifically illegal to [urge] a person to assist the enemy:

(a) the person urges another person to engage in conduct; and
(b) the first-mentioned person intends the conduct to assist, by any means whatever, an organisation or country; and
(c) the organisation or country is:
(i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared; and
(ii) specified by Proclamation made for the purpose of paragraph 80.1(1)(e) to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth.
or to [urge] a person to assist those engaged in armed hostilities:

(a) the person urges another person to engage in conduct; and
(b) the first-mentioned person intends the conduct to assist, by any means whatever, an organisation or country; and
(c) the organisation or country is engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force.
except where such urgings are by way of, or for the purposes of, the provision of aid of a humanitarian nature.

These new crimes are all punishable by Imprisonment for 7 years.

Please tell me what it is you consider so dangerous about a legal right to overthrow a leader that has become a genocidal dictator and has broken the constitutional law? Why do you think leaders should be legally allowed to stay in office even if they've broken the constitutional law, for example by starting genocide? Do you seriously think genocide would ever serve the interests of your nation?

There is no legal right to overthrow the established authority through violence. I will continue to state this until you provide a constitution or a law that expressily states that its a legal right to use violence to overthrow the established authority.

Now what is so dangerous - its advocation of violence - a fine line is crossed when the legal code allows for the use of violence. The moral obligation of the people to remove a dangerous leader requires them to break the legal code of the established authority. Its not an action that should be taken lightly. If your willing to pay the ulitmate price to fullfil your moral obligation to remove a dictator or dangerous government - you do not need a legal right to do so. A legal right allows for abuse by groups that will and do use violence to get what they want. Providing a legal right to advocate the destruction of the state - provides just that recourse.

[Redleg]

I quote from addmendment IX


and from the declaration of independence


Saying that the people have no right to abolish there governments in a last resort to restore freedom is going against almost all the ideas our government was founded on. Just because it is not listed in the constitution does not mean that the people have no right to it.

Read again - you have no legal right to use violence to abolish the government. Its know where in the Constitution.

Now according to the founding fathers of the United States you have a moral right to do so. This is what they were speaking of. These men so firmily believed in this principle that they were willing to sacrifice their lives, their families, everything they held dear to make it so. But they also realize tha they did not have a legal right to do so.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

They were speaking of the moral duty of man - not the legal right to advocate violence.

It is interesting to note that these same men also advocated the Article section of the constitution alreadly mentioned - that the Congress will raise the militia to supress insurgection, rebellion and sedition.

And the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Just like it confirms what I have stated.

So you're admitting that what I said was correct?

You might want to review the whole thing and what the Australian press has stated about it.

Feel free to post any press comments you consider relevant to the discussion.

Your getting close - the legality however only works if the rebellion against the established authority is accomplished.

No, that was the entire point, which is also confirmed by the IX amendment: if the government goes against the constitution the government is illegal and a revolt overthrowing it is legal. For example - if the government commits genocide or removes the democratic rights of the citizens and creates dictatorship.

Again your not paying attention - to what was written. The legality exists with the established authority. Until its accomplished all you have is a moral duty.

No, according to the IX amendment you have a legal right to revolt against an usurper government. Not only that are you denying, but you're also saying it should be forbidden to suggest in speech that an urusper government should be overthrown (which is what this thread is about - freedom of speech). As for countries with constitution that doesn't state things like this, that's both sad and a threat to their democracy.

That was not your initial arguement - nor was it mine

It was my initial opinion and is the opinion I'm still holding.

the legality of your actions is based upon the government

An usurper government may call you a criminal if you overthrow it, but if the constitution says it's legal to overthrow an usurper government then it's legal from a formal viewpoint. A claim that it's illegal must be a lie.

The moral duty is something else. You again attempting a moral equilevency that I refuse to play into.

Moral equivalency and equal moral and legal rights for everyone is a general principle that I again must ask why you oppose?

Maybe you should mention one group of dissents that were able to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority. Gandi advocated the overthrow of the British in India - not through violence but through peaceful protest.

Gandhi was lucky in that he didn't need violence to succeed, because the British authority there didn't really consider it worth holding India by massmurders and genocidal terror. An usurper government of genocidal maniacs such as the nazi government must be legal to overthrow by violence if necessary, according to constitutional law. Any government which breaks constitutional law is illegitimate, and is thus legal to overthrow. But you're going as far as to say that it's illegal to not only overthrow such a government, but also illegal to merely state your opinion that that government should be overthrown, and you state that people who would state their opinion that someone like Hitler should be overthrown should be punished for stating that opinion.

I seperate legal from moral when it concerns rights and freedoms

You're on dangerous ground when you fail to understand how law is related to morality. Again: law is a formalized version of our morality, our rules on what is right and wrong to do. It's supposed to be carefully phrased with exact definition to allow for only one interpretation so that all will be equal before the law. Morality is strongly related to law, and the closer the two can be, the better. That is the very aim of law.

Not all states have the same legal rights - but all men have the same moral obligations.

Differences in law comes from the differences in moral ideas. There's no single ultimate moral truth which holds globally, but local differences in details (and sometimes also in big things) exist.

Maybe its not my language but your understanding of what I am saying. The terms I used make perfect sense to me. certain clear cut terms were used - such as the violent overthrow being one of them.

If you state that "all advocating violence against another should be illegal and punished by law", that means that for example that your principle would apply also to cases like:
- saying that a mass-murderer dictator like Hitler should be overthrown should in your opinion be a crime that should give a punishment
- saying that someone should have death penalty would in your opinion be a crime that should give a punishment

Is it really that difficult for you to see how that way too generalized and vague phrasing automatically implies that you also hold the opinions of the two points above?

Again show where one national law advocates the violent overthrow of the established authority.

Maybe you should read the IX amendment of the constitution of the United States of America.

The Weimer Republic did not have your constitution - it had its own. This is why I don't engage in moral equilevency.

If you can't even reason about all possible hypothetical cases, then your attempt to make a general statement about how laws should isn't to be taken seriously. When making an attempt at making a general statement it's important to immediately seek the most extreme counter-examples that could exist. Maybe you've heard of contra-positive proof, which is a central part of logic? If you say x holds for all cases of y, and I find just one counter-example y for which x doesn't hold, then I've counter-proved your statement that x holds for all y. When generalizations and attempts of formulating a legal definition are made, it's essential to go through all practical pre-existing and possible future examples and see how the principle we formulate would work out in practise. Your principle wouldn't work, unless you support the two opinions I mentioned above:
- saying that a mass-murderer dictator like Hitler should be overthrown should in your opinion be a crime that should give a punishment
- saying that someone should have death penalty would in your opinion be a crime that in your opinion should give a punishment

If you do hold those opinions, then your attempt to find a general legal statement defining what crime is according to your moral values was successful, but then I also know that you have moral values which I don't share. If you don't hold those opinions you've failed miserably in your attempt to find a general statement that precisely defines and summarizes your opinion of freedom of speech

Attempting to place moral equilevency has caused you to misinterpate and spin my statement to something you wish to believe they mean.

Again I must remind you that when making a general statement on the theoretical level you must be aware of what consequences it implies on the practical level. See the comment I made above.

You still don't have an idea what my opinion is. Legally if the plotting of the overthrow of the established authority and the conduct of the established authority is against the law. It can be the moral correct thing to do

You're confusing the right to state an opinion that a government should be overthrown, and the right to actually overthrow it. In this discussion of freedom of speech I've repeatedly tried to explain to you that punishing someone for having the opinion that the government should be overthrown would be a crime against democratic principles. It's the very foundation of the freedom of speech principle.

- but guess what - you still haven't shown a constitution that allows the violent overthrow of the government

The Australian law and the IX Amendment of USA.

There is no legal right to overthrow the established authority through violence. I will continue to state this until you provide a constitution or a law that expressily states that its a legal right to use violence to overthrow the established authority.

Now what is so dangerous - its advocation of violence - a fine line is crossed when the legal code allows for the use of violence.

Are you saying that usage of violence, and the right to merely stating your opinion that a genocidal dictator government like Hitler's nazi government should be overthrown, are the same things?

The moral obligation of the people to remove a dangerous leader requires them to break the legal code of the established authority. Its not an action that should be taken lightly. If your willing to pay the ulitmate price to fullfil your moral obligation to remove a dictator or dangerous government - you do not need a legal right to do so. A legal right allows for abuse by groups that will and do use violence to get what they want. Providing a legal right to advocate the destruction of the state - provides just that recourse.

This statement means that if a group of freedom fighters managed to overthrow a leader like Hitler, they would in your opinion have committed a crime, and should in your opinion be locked up in jail after successfully saving their people.

[Redleg]

So you're admitting that what I said was correct?

I never said you were not correct - I am saying that the principle I hold is the same as what this law states.

Feel free to post any press comments you consider relevant to the discussion.

Not at all - the law passed with concerns that that law would suppress Freedom of Speech - it doesn't suppress because it only makes the advocation of violence a criminal act.

No, that was the entire point, which is also confirmed by the IX amendment: if the government goes against the constitution the government is illegal and a revolt overthrowing it is legal. For example - if the government commits genocide or removes the democratic rights of the citizens and creates dictatorship.

The ammendment does not superced the body of the constitution. Advocation of the violent overthrow of the government is not a legal right.

No, according to the IX amendment you have a legal right to revolt against an usurper government. Not only that are you denying, but you're also saying it should be forbidden to suggest in speech that an urusper government should be overthrown (which is what this thread is about - freedom of speech).

Again read the IX ammendment. it does not provide for the ability of the citizenship to advocate violence. Notice what the body of the Constitution states about sedition. The national authority has stated that sedition will be supressed by congress - which means that the government has alreadly made a statement concerning that.

It was my initial opinion and is the opinion I'm still holding.

Fine - your sticking with the moral equalivency.

An usurper government may call you a criminal if you overthrow it, but if the constitution says it's legal to overthrow an usurper government then it's legal from a formal viewpoint. A claim that it's illegal must be a lie.

Not at all - the established authority is the legal authority. Until the government is overthrown - the legal authority rests with him. The people must gain it back. That is the moral duty - the legal right does not exist.

Moral equivalency and equal moral and legal rights for everyone is a general principle that I again must ask why you oppose?

Moral equivalency does not apply in the context you are attempting to use it.

Gandhi was lucky in that he didn't need violence to succeed, because the British authority there didn't really consider it worth holding India by massmurders and genocidal terror. An usurper government of genocidal maniacs such as the nazi government must be legal to overthrow by violence if necessary, according to constitutional law. Any government which breaks constitutional law is illegitimate, and is thus legal to overthrow. But you're going as far as to say that it's illegal to not only overthrow such a government, but also illegal to merely state your opinion that that government should be overthrown, and you state that people who would state their opinion that someone like Hitler should be overthrown should be punished for stating that opinion.

Gandi was far from lucky. It seems that your more guilty of something then I myself is.

Try reading again - I am saying the government will call it illegal because they are the established authority. Legality remains with the established authority until it is abolished by the people. The advocation of violence goes against the principles of legality. It seems your stuck on Hilter but refusing to acknowledge the principle as it applies to Gandi. This is the problem with Moral Equalivency.

You're on dangerous ground when you fail to understand how law is related to morality. Again: law is a formalized version of our morality, our rules on what is right and wrong to do. It's supposed to be carefully phrased with exact definition to allow for only one interpretation so that all will be equal before the law. Morality is strongly related to law, and the closer the two can be, the better. That is the very aim of law.

The moral right for the people to overthrow the establish authority is not a legal right. The dangerous ground exists when the legal authority states that it is okay to advocate violence. Again laws are and do exist to maintain control over the population nott to enforce morality. If morality was behind all laws - the abortion rights issue would not exist - because their would be no abortions. The deah penality would not exist because it would violate a moral law.

Differences in law comes from the differences in moral ideas. There's no single ultimate moral truth which holds globally, but local differences in details (and sometimes also in big things) exist.

Correct

If you state that "all advocating violence against another should be illegal and punished by law", that means that for example that your principle would apply also to cases like:
- saying that a mass-murderer dictator like Hitler should be overthrown should in your opinion be a crime that should give a punishment
- saying that someone should have death penalty would in your opinion be a crime that should give a punishment

Your again attempting to apply moral equilivency when none exists - the legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority exists in no constitution that I have read. The moral obligation to remove a dictator exists only in man - not the law.

Is it really that difficult for you to see how that way too generalized and vague phrasing automatically implies that you also hold the opinions of the two points above?

Not at all - the statement of violent overthrow is pretty darn specific to me.

Now the right to protest against the government exists in law. The right to call for the removal of a government official exists in law. The right to advocate or use violence to overthrow the government does not exist in law. It exists when it is a morally correct action. However one must be willing to go against the law to do so.

Maybe you should read the IX amendment of the constitution of the United States of America.

Maybe you should read both the constitution and the ammendment. The ammendment does not supercede the constitution unless it is written expressily for the purpose of the article and section. Ammendment IX does not remove the power from congress to supress sedition, rebellion, and insurgection.

If you can't even reason about all possible hypothetical cases, then your attempt to make a general statement about how laws should isn't to be taken seriously. When making an attempt at making a general statement it's important to immediately seek the most extreme counter-examples that could exist. Maybe you've heard of contra-positive proof, which is a central part of logic? If you say x holds for all cases of y, and I find just one counter-example y for which x doesn't hold, then I've counter-proved your statement that x holds for all y. When generalizations and attempts of formulating a legal definition are made, it's essential to go through all practical pre-existing and possible future examples and see how the principle we formulate would work out in practise. Your principle wouldn't work, unless you support the two opinions I mentioned above:

I suggest you take your own advice - you use Hilter - I use Gandi. You discount Gandi. It seems your more guilty of this then I.

- saying that a mass-murderer dictator like Hitler should be overthrown should in your opinion be a crime that should give a punishment
- saying that someone should have death penalty would in your opinion be a crime that in your opinion should give a punishment

Moral equilivency does not apply.

If you do hold those opinions, then your attempt to find a general legal statement defining what crime is according to your moral values was successful, but then I also know that you have moral values which I don't share. If you don't hold those opinions you've failed miserably in your attempt to find a general statement that precisely defines and summarizes your opinion of freedom of speech

Not at all - I fully understand my opinion. You don't like it because I do not advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority as an inherient right of Freedom of Speech. Frankly you have not shown any document that shows that someone has a legal right to advocate violence of any type.

Again I must remind you that when making a general statement on the theoretical level you must be aware of what consequences it implies on the practical level. See the comment I made above.

You might want to examine that one yourself - given that you discount the examble of the peaceful overthrow of the established authority by Gandi.

You're confusing the right to state an opinion that a government should be overthrown, and the right to actually overthrow it. In this discussion of freedom of speech I've repeatedly tried to explain to you that punishing someone for having the opinion that the government should be overthrown would be a crime against democratic principles. It's the very foundation of the freedom of speech principle.

And again you have confused yourself - the advocation of the violent overthrow of the government is the wording used. The opinion that the government should be overthrown by peaceful protest, by individuals calling for the removal of that authority is protected speech - something I have stated several times. The advocation of violent overthrow of the established authority is not protected speech. Again refer to the examble of Gandi.

The Australian law and the IX Amendment of USA.

Then I suggest you read what it states. Neither gives an individual the legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the state.

Are you saying that usage of violence, and the right to merely stating your opinion that a genocidal dictator government like Hitler's nazi government should be overthrown, are the same things?

The advocation of violent overthrowing of the established authority has been shown by many nations not to be a legal right.

The advocation of the peaceful overthrowing of the established authority through peaceful dissent and protest is protected speech.

So no they are not the same thing. And I have been consistent with that approach.

This statement means that if a group of freedom fighters managed to overthrow a leader like Hitler, they would in your opinion have committed a crime, and should in your opinion be locked up in jail after successfully saving their people.

Nope that is what your interpation - the statement means exactly what it states.

[Lord Winter]

Read again - you have no legal right to use violence to abolish the government. Its know where in the Constitution.

Now according to the founding fathers of the United States you have a moral right to do so. This is what they were speaking of. These men so firmily believed in this principle that they were willing to sacrifice their lives, their families, everything they held dear to make it so. But they also realize tha they did not have a legal right to do so.

U.S. law is based on the idea of natural rights. The Bill of rights was included so a strong federal government could not take these rights away. The founders believed that these natural rights were above the law of nations and were guaranteed to all men no matter class. Among these rights the founders thought that one of them was a right to over throw a dictatorship. However they also argued that it wasn't a right to over throw a government that you disagreed in.

They were speaking of the moral duty of man - not the legal right to advocate violence.

Advocating violence is different from a majority advocating an overthrow of a government that violates there natural rights.

It is interesting to note that these same men also advocated the Article section of the constitution already mentioned - that the Congress will raise the militia to supress insurgection, rebellion and sedition.

Should the government under the U.S. constitution be able to arrest someone for saying that a government should be overthrown but taking no action.

In my option that seems like a form of censure ship.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I never said you were not correct - I am saying that the principle I hold is the same as what this law states.

So you're claiming the law says I'm right at the same time it says you're right, while our opinions at the same time are contradictionary to each other?

The ammendment does not superced the body of the constitution. Advocation of the violent overthrow of the government is not a legal right.

I think you should read the IX Ammendment again.

Fine - your sticking with the moral equalivency.

And you're still insisting that different people should be judged by different moral principles, contrary to the principle of equality before the law that is central to democracy.

Not at all - the established authority is the legal authority. Until the government is overthrown - the legal authority rests with him. The people must gain it back. That is the moral duty - the legal right does not exist.

You should read some of the 18th century philosophers, which lay the foundation for modern democracy. Their works were not perfect, because they lived in totalitarian states and thus had difficulties predicting the exact practical outcome of their statements, because their suggestions were so radical compared to the "king by the grace of God"-constutitions used at that time. But one principle which was very insightful - the courts should have the legal authority, the people should elect the government, and the government should only be allowed to pass new laws - but not control individual instances of law (the only exception being to give amnesty to sentenced criminals, but not imprison someone that the courts don't consider guilty) - that's a right that belongs to the court. The idea was that the court and the government shouldn't be a single body, so that not all eggs would be put in one basket. The system isn't foolproof, but it's what we've built the modern attempts at democracy on - court and government shouldn't be one.

Moral equivalency does not apply in the context you are attempting to use it.

Equality before the law and by moral judgement is a necessity in all cases. A morality or law which treats different people differently can't be called justice.

Gandi was far from lucky. It seems that your more guilty of something then I myself is.

Indeed - Gandi was far from lucky on the personal level. Not all rebels want to become martyrs for their cause. In fact, so many people in history have been killed for their cause because they wanted to negotiate with the leader, or only try to achieve own independence rather than crush the oppressors who removed their freedom. Gandi was politically lucky in that he succeeded in his political objectives. The non-violence approach worked from a political point of view. But perhaps from a personal point of view, a fighter for freedom and justice like him should have overthrown the oppressive government and executed it's leaders, rather than try to bring them to their senses. Everything oppressive leaders do - like forbidding freedom of speech - makes it more and more necessary for freedom fighters to use violence directly without forewarning rather than first trying to allow the leaders to leave their posts peacefully when they're starting things like oppression and genocide. The problem is - when the people start using violence directly, as they're forced to when freedom of speech is forbidden, the leaders are never given any chance to leave their positions in peace, and get scared. By the time they realize the hatred among the people, it's gone so far that almost everyone has a personal reason to murder the leader. He can't leave power then, because if he does he will get killed. The only thing that can save him then is to kill all opposition, make examples, and keep doing so until he either dies of old age or - more commonly - his killing of opposition has made more and more people hate him personally so that a massive enough rebellion can be launched and successfully overthrow - and kill - him. The leader doesn't like to kill opposition - he does it from desire of saving himself, neither does the opposition like to be killed. Allowing freedom of speech to critisise the government in any way as early as possible is something that benefits both leaders and the people.

I am saying the government will call it illegal because they are the established authority.

Yes, that's what I'm saying too. But you're also saying that you're opposing having a constitutional law that would call a leader illegitimate if he carries out genocide or removes democratic rights. You're also saying that merely speaking in favor of overthrowing a leader who carries out genocide and removes democratic rights like Hitler did, should in your opinion be a criminal act according to constitution, and in your opinion be punished according to law.

I'm saying too that a government like Hitler's government will probably try to call someone a criminal if he protests against the regime. But calling someone like that a criminal would go against the constitutional law, and thus make the leader illegitimate and legally and morally justified to overthrow. No leader can serve his country better by removing democratic rights and start genocide. Such tools - genocide and dictatorship - do not need to be reservwed as a right of a leader, because only a mad leader would ever feel a desire to use them, while a sensible leader would never use them.

This is the problem with Moral Equalivency.

Praetereo censeo Carthaginem esse delendam...
Why do you keep saying that people shouldn't be treated equal according to morals and law? I fail to see what that has to do with this discussion. Can you motivate your desire that people should be treated differently by moral and law?

Again laws are and do exist to maintain control over the population nott to enforce morality.

You sound like a true dictator

If morality was behind all laws - the abortion rights issue would not exist - because their would be no abortions. The deah penality would not exist because it would violate a moral law.

So you're saying that if law doesn't follow your personal morality views, law isn't based on morality? Law is indeed based on morality - a compromise between the different moral values models that different individual in the society have. You can't form laws according to just your own moral views - you must listen to what others think too. In some cases groups with a different moral view get disappointed when laws are based on another moral view in that issue, but such is life - it's not possible within a single society to have more than a single law that applies equally to all people within that society.

Correct

Since part of what you quoted above the comment correct was: "Differences in law comes from the differences in moral ideas", I assume you're indeed admitting that law is based on morality? Or was it an accident on your part to include that statement in the quote above the comment "correct"?

Not at all - the statement of violent overthrow is pretty darn specific to me.

Do you honestly fail to see that a statement that says that generally "any advocating of violence against anyone is a crime" (your statement) means that all cases where any person or group advocates violence against any person or group under any circumstances would be a crime? This includes these cases which it's clear that you think should be forbidden:
- advocating the overthrow of a leader that follows constitutional law
- advocating violence against someone based on race, religion, sexuality or political leanings
But it also includes these cases, which you vary between saying should be forbidden and should not be forbidden:
- advocating the overthrow of a leader that breaks the constitutional law, removes democratic rights, and carries out genocide
- speaking in favor of death penalty as a part of legal system, or suggesting death penalty for a certain legal case
- speaking in favor of using self-defense against someone who attack you

Let me make the question crystal clear - do you support this statement (which you mentioned above) or not?
"any advocating of violence against anyone is a crime"

However one must be willing to go against the law to do so.

No, it's within the constitutional law, which weighs heavier than other laws, that a government that breaks constitutional laws thereby becomes illegitimate, and according to law is allowed to overthrow. Anyone who imprisons someone for trying to overthrow that government, or imprisons someone for stating the opinion that he/she thinks overthrowing that government would be good, is committing a crime by imprisoning those people.

I suggest you take your own advice - you use Hilter - I use Gandi. You discount Gandi. It seems your more guilty of this then I.

Feel free to point out where I discounted Gandhi. Gandhi is relevant to the subject and I've discussed his case in every post since you first mentioned him.

Frankly you have not shown any document that shows that someone has a legal right to advocate violence of any type.

You keeping saying that even when I show documents that do support my view. If you try to interpret those documents according to your own backwards anti-democratic Medieval ideals of "king by the grace of God" (but without the blessing God and religious morality), then this discussion is pointless.

You might want to examine that one yourself - given that you discount the examble of the peaceful overthrow of the established authority by Gandi.

Not at all. Please point out how my view - the constitutional law I support - would have made matters worse for Gandhi. You may also point out why you think your view would make matters better for Gandhi, and also point out why making it illegal to advocate the overthrow of someone like Hitler who breaks the constitutional law and carries out genocide, would have made matters better for the 50 million people who died as a result of Hitler's actions.

Nope that is what your interpation - the statement means exactly what it states.

No, your statement means exactly that. A law is something that, if it was passed by a government considered legitimate, is followed under any circumstances where a legitimate government is in power to make sure that law is followed. You're saying that someone who overthrows an illegitimate government is overthrowing established authority (would you care to explain how a government that breaks constitutional law and carries out genocide would still be established authority?), and should according to law be punished for it. Now if he fails to overthrow the illegitimate government, they may send him off to camps (contrary to constitutional law), but if he succeeds, he should, according to your opinion, be sentenced according to law for his crime. The new government must therefore sentence him! The only way he can go free for saving his people is if the new government formally gives him amnesty. That's what your attempt at formulating a law would imply if used in a practical situation.

[Redleg]

So you're claiming the law says I'm right at the same time it says you're right, while our opinions at the same time are contradictionary to each other?

Guess what Legio - the laws states that the advocation of the violent overthrow of the government is illegal. So the contradiction is in your interpation of my words.

I think you should read the IX Ammendment again.

The ammendment does not supercede the statement in the constitution about sedition. I suggest that if your going to argue the point that you understand what the body of the constitution states and what Ammendment XI means.

And you're still insisting that different people should be judged by different moral principles, contrary to the principle of equality before the law that is central to democracy.

That is what you believe I am stating. I don't compare modern times to issues of the past where the breakdown of morals effected the whole society. Hilter rose to power because in the end the German people wanted him in power.

You should read some of the 18th century philosophers, which lay the foundation for modern democracy. Their works were not perfect, because they lived in totalitarian states and thus had difficulties predicting the exact practical outcome of their statements, because their suggestions were so radical compared to the "king by the grace of God"-constutitions used at that time. But one principle which was very insightful - the courts should have the legal authority, the people should elect the government, and the government should only be allowed to pass new laws - but not control individual instances of law (the only exception being to give amnesty to sentenced criminals, but not imprison someone that the courts don't consider guilty) - that's a right that belongs to the court. The idea was that the court and the government shouldn't be a single body, so that not all eggs would be put in one basket. The system isn't foolproof, but it's what we've built the modern attempts at democracy on - court and government shouldn't be one.

Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and a few others. The seperation of powers of government is a different subject then Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech depends upon that seperation of powers. You arguement is based upon one specific type of instance - mine postion is based upon an overall application. THe advocation of violent overthrow of the government has never been protected speech. Again you still have not shown where a government has made it legal for such speech.

In the United States we have the three branches of Power. When one advocates the violent overthrow of the established authority - one is advocating the violent overthrow of the government - they are speaking of all three branches.

Equality before the law and by moral judgement is a necessity in all cases. A morality or law which treats different people differently can't be called justice.

Correct - but in the application of using a law to make violence legal - you are removing the equality from the system. Using Hilter as an examble and ignoring Gandi - you are not only apply a double standard you are also using moral relativity.

Indeed - Gandi was far from lucky on the personal level. Not all rebels want to become martyrs for their cause. In fact, so many people in history have been killed for their cause because they wanted to negotiate with the leader, or only try to achieve own independence rather than crush the oppressors who removed their freedom. Gandi was politically lucky in that he succeeded in his political objectives. The non-violence approach worked from a political point of view. But perhaps from a personal point of view, a fighter for freedom and justice like him should have overthrown the oppressive government and executed it's leaders, rather than try to bring them to their senses. Everything oppressive leaders do - like forbidding freedom of speech - makes it more and more necessary for freedom fighters to use violence directly without forewarning rather than first trying to allow the leaders to leave their posts peacefully when they're starting things like oppression and genocide. The problem is - when the people start using violence directly, as they're forced to when freedom of speech is forbidden, the leaders are never given any chance to leave their positions in peace, and get scared. By the time they realize the hatred among the people, it's gone so far that almost everyone has a personal reason to murder the leader. He can't leave power then, because if he does he will get killed. The only thing that can save him then is to kill all opposition, make examples, and keep doing so until he either dies of old age or - more commonly - his killing of opposition has made more and more people hate him personally so that a massive enough rebellion can be launched and successfully overthrow - and kill - him. The leader doesn't like to kill opposition - he does it from desire of saving himself, neither does the opposition like to be killed. Allowing freedom of speech to critisise the government in any way as early as possible is something that benefits both leaders and the people.

And the point you still refuse to see is that I have stated this several times - minsus the advocation of the violent overthrow of the established authority. When the people advocate violence against the established authority it needs to come from a moral stance not a legal stance.

Yes, that's what I'm saying too. But you're also saying that you're opposing having a constitutional law that would call a leader illegitimate if he carries out genocide or removes democratic rights. You're also saying that merely speaking in favor of overthrowing a leader who carries out genocide and removes democratic rights like Hitler did, should in your opinion be a criminal act according to constitution, and in your opinion be punished according to law.

Incorrect once again - I am saying that the advocation of the violent overthrow of the established authority is not legal right. Nor should it be included in the constitution as a legal right. Making a clause in the consititution to make a leader illegitmate if he carries out felonies alreadly exists - especially in the United States constitution. The Impeachment process is alreadly established.

Now I see the major problem with your interpation of my opinion. You don't understand the nature of the United States Constitution, nor did you read what I have actually wrote since I do base my opinion off of that document. You decided that my comments were on the far edge of nazi thought and have not paid attention to the words used. I have consistently stated that the advocation of the violent overthrow of the government/established authority is not a legal right nor it should be. THe United States has three branches of government with checks and balances established to prevent such a leader as Hilter emerging. Will it work absolutely every time - who knows - but there are checks alreadly established that have worked so far. When one advocates the violent overthrow of the established authority one is advocating the forceable removal of all branches of the government. When that exists in the United States - the legality of the actions of the people will no longer have a stance in legal codes - but in moral codes based upon the Declaration of Independence.

I'm saying too that a government like Hitler's government will probably try to call someone a criminal if he protests against the regime. But calling someone like that a criminal would go against the constitutional law, and thus make the leader illegitimate and legally and morally justified to overthrow. No leader can serve his country better by removing democratic rights and start genocide. Such tools - genocide and dictatorship - do not need to be reservwed as a right of a leader, because only a mad leader would ever feel a desire to use them, while a sensible leader would never use them.

And your point here is what? That your beginnning to see the point that the advocation of violence against the establisheed authority is not a legal right. It can however be the morally correct course of action in the instance of leader like Hilter, when the governmental appratuas and system has become a completely failure.

Praetereo censeo Carthaginem esse delendam...
Why do you keep saying that people shouldn't be treated equal according to morals and law? I fail to see what that has to do with this discussion. Can you motivate your desire that people should be treated differently by moral and law?

I don't compare the laws of Germany in 1930 to the Laws of the United States in 2000.

You sound like a true dictator

Not at all - a realist. Jaywalking laws exist to control people. Most traffic laws exist to control people and traffic. Lots of laws exist purely to control the population - that are not based upon any moral law.

So you're saying that if law doesn't follow your personal morality views, law isn't based on morality? Law is indeed based on morality - a compromise between the different moral values models that different individual in the society have. You can't form laws according to just your own moral views - you must listen to what others think too. In some cases groups with a different moral view get disappointed when laws are based on another moral view in that issue, but such is life - it's not possible within a single society to have more than a single law that applies equally to all people within that society.

Again murder is murder. So if the law is based soley on the morality of things - abortion would not exist since it is murder of potential human being. THe death penality is another examble of state sanctioned killing of another human being. And you are demonstration once again the problem with moral equilevency and moral relativity.

Since part of what you quoted above the comment correct was: "Differences in law comes from the differences in moral ideas", I assume you're indeed admitting that law is based on morality? Or was it an accident on your part to include that statement in the quote above the comment "correct"?

Some laws are indeed based soley on morality - murder, theft, adultry, and a few others. Some laws are based upon controling the population. The correct means that in essence I can agree with your point - if not the whole thing. A simple word that means for this discussion I will agree with the main idea that I precieved in that paragraph.

Do you honestly fail to see that a statement that says that generally "any advocating of violence against anyone is a crime" (your statement) means that all cases where any person or group advocates violence against any person or group under any circumstances would be a crime?

Do you honestly continue to on purpose ignore what is written and what is stated?

This includes these cases which it's clear that you think should be forbidden:
- advocating the overthrow of a leader that follows constitutional law

to be a crime it requires one to advocate the violent overthrow

- advocating violence against someone based on race, religion, sexuality or political leanings

Correct.

But it also includes these cases, which you vary between saying should be forbidden and should not be forbidden:
- advocating the overthrow of a leader that breaks the constitutional law, removes democratic rights, and carries out genocide

In the United States that individual would have alreadly gone through the impeachment process.

And its not a crime to advocate his removal - only if one advocates the violent overthrow of the government.

- speaking in favor of death penalty as a part of legal system, or suggesting death penalty for a certain legal case

It can be seen as such - however once again in the United States the death penality has been legal, then illegal, and back to legal - and is under review once again.

- speaking in favor of using self-defense against someone who attack you

Your reaching - the inherient right to self-defense exists.

Let me make the question crystal clear - do you support this statement (which you mentioned above) or not?
"any advocating of violence against anyone is a crime"

Correct that is consistent with what we have discussed.

No, it's within the constitutional law, which weighs heavier than other laws, that a government that breaks constitutional laws thereby becomes illegitimate, and according to law is allowed to overthrow. Anyone who imprisons someone for trying to overthrow that government, or imprisons someone for stating the opinion that he/she thinks overthrowing that government would be good, is committing a crime by imprisoning those people.

Once a leader such as Hilter gathers such power constitutional law no longer exists - therefore there is only the moral obligation to remove the individual from power. However their actions will go against the law of the established authority. The legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority does not exist in any constititution that I have seen or read. You still have not shown a single one.

Feel free to point out where I discounted Gandhi. Gandhi is relevant to the subject and I've discussed his case in every post since you first mentioned him.

Calling his actions lucky shows that you discount what Gandhi did. His actions are the model of peaceful protest against the illegal actions of the state. Martin Luther King Jr. Is another examble of such actions. Both men were far from lucky in their course of action. It took time, effort, in the face of danger, and violence by the state against them.

You keeping saying that even when I show documents that do support my view. If you try to interpret those documents according to your own backwards anti-democratic Medieval ideals of "king by the grace of God" (but without the blessing God and religious morality), then this discussion is pointless.

You haven't shown documents Legio - I pointed to the new law in Austrialia and the United States Constititution. Both which have laws against sedition.

The discussion has been pointless since you first brought forward the moral equilevency and moral relativity of using Hilter and not providing the documents that state its legal to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority.

Not at all. Please point out how my view - the constitutional law I support - would have made matters worse for Gandhi. You may also point out why you think your view would make matters better for Gandhi, and also point out why making it illegal to advocate the overthrow of someone like Hitler who breaks the constitutional law and carries out genocide, would have made matters better for the 50 million people who died as a result of Hitler's actions.

The point Legio is that the efforts of Gandi support the idea behind why it not a legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority. His efforts demonstrate my point in reality - just like Martin Luther King Jr's efforts.

No, your statement means exactly that. A law is something that, if it was passed by a government considered legitimate, is followed under any circumstances where a legitimate government is in power to make sure that law is followed. You're saying that someone who overthrows an illegitimate government is overthrowing established authority (would you care to explain how a government that breaks constitutional law and carries out genocide would still be established authority?), and should according to law be punished for it. Now if he fails to overthrow the illegitimate government, they may send him off to camps (contrary to constitutional law), but if he succeeds, he should, according to your opinion, be sentenced according to law for his crime. The new government must therefore sentence him! The only way he can go free for saving his people is if the new government formally gives him amnesty. That's what your attempt at formulating a law would imply if used in a practical situation.

You still fail to read what is written. The Declartion of Independence and the War of Independence supports my postion very well. The Declartion of Independence was the document where the rebels placed their moral right and obligation to remove a unwanted form of government. Their rebellion against the state was illegal in the eyes of the British Crown. Because their action was successful their actions were deemed correct and lawful.

Again the wording of the statement means exactly what it stated in the words used - not what you believed it to mean.

The moral obligation of the people to remove a dangerous leader requires them to break the legal code of the established authority. Its not an action that should be taken lightly. If your willing to pay the ulitmate price to fullfil your moral obligation to remove a dictator or dangerous government - you do not need a legal right to do so. A legal right allows for abuse by groups that will and do use violence to get what they want. Providing a legal right to advocate the destruction of the state - provides just that recourse.

It seems you are only operating from the veiw point of the European - not a world view.....

[Rodion Romanovich]

Guess what Legio - the laws states that the advocation of the violent overthrow of the government is illegal. So the contradiction is in your interpation of my words.

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?

Hilter rose to power because in the end the German people wanted him in power.

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.

Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and a few others. The seperation of powers of government is a different subject then Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech depends upon that seperation of powers. You arguement is based upon one specific type of instance - mine postion is based upon an overall application. THe advocation of violent overthrow of the government has never been protected speech. Again you still have not shown where a government has made it legal for such speech.

In the United States we have the three branches of Power. When one advocates the violent overthrow of the established authority - one is advocating the violent overthrow of the government - they are speaking of all three branches.

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.

Correct - but in the application of using a law to make violence legal - you are removing the equality from the system. Using Hilter as an examble and ignoring Gandi - you are not only apply a double standard you are also using moral relativity.

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.

And your point here is what? That your beginnning to see the point that the advocation of violence against the establisheed authority is not a legal right. It can however be the morally correct course of action in the instance of leader like Hilter, when the governmental appratuas and system has become a completely failure.

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.

[QUOTE=Redleg]
I don't compare the laws of Germany in 1930 to the Laws of the United States in 2000.

Not at all - a realist. Jaywalking laws exist to control people. Most traffic laws exist to control people and traffic. Lots of laws exist purely to control the population - that are not based upon any moral law.

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.

to be a crime it requires one to advocate the violent overthrow

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

It can be seen as such - however once again in the United States the death penality has been legal, then illegal, and back to legal - and is under review once again.

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

Correct that is consistent with what we have discussed.

Big contradition

Once a leader such as Hilter gathers such power constitutional law no longer exists

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.

Calling his actions lucky shows that you discount what Gandhi did. His actions are the model of peaceful protest against the illegal actions of the state.

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.

The discussion has been pointless since you first brought forward the moral equilevency

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[x-dANGEr]

I'm probably missing the biggest point on earth but that's why I want views on this. What does "Freedom Of Speech" stand for ?

The ability to express your opinions with no fear, that is what I hear from the Western world's presidents. Though, IMO, it is the ability to express your opinion freely as long as it doesn't insult, or hurt others' beliefs.

I mean, what practical uses has it contributed towards a more modern society ?

Not much; if you ask me. It is just an excuse for governments to say "XXXXX is a free country, it allows freedom of speech", that the concept gets too traditional to even have an effect.

Where does it start and end (if it does) ?

It surely should end before the borders of insulting others' beliefs.

And, for example, individuals publicly express their ideas of provocation and/or hatred towards the identity of your country/nation, how far is it acceptable?

Depends on how far they go, but at some point, it surely is not acceptable.

Is it still freedom of speech and subject to being "injudgeable by authorities" ?

no Idea.

Is freedom of speech universal or should be redefined among distinct cultures ?

I think it should be redefined within distinct cultures, knowing that each one has different beliefs, behaviours and standards.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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

How would you know? Were you there?

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.

So you mean the German people should have hugged trees to get rid of Hitler, and if they ever considered using any other method for overthrowing him they would in your opinion be criminals? No wonder so many are afraid of overthrowing dictators if there are people calling them criminals for even considering it unless they ask him nicely to step away from power. After a certain point where the dictator doesn't allow free speech, it's obvious that hugging trees doesn't work anymore. So many freedom-fighting rebels throughout history have died because they still wanted to be honorable and negotiate and only strive for their own freedom rather than the destruction of their oppressors, with the result that the at that time stronger oppressor won, and massexecuted the rebels. Rebels of this day can no longer afford that. A dictator can only be given one chance - by knowing before he breaks the constitutinal law that he will become illegitimate by doing so. Then any violence necessary is allowed, and encouraged. Anything else would be an outrage.

Under the government that is in control that is correct.

It's not should, but it is "would". Should implies you agree to the sentence. Would implies that you suspect the illegitimate regime to carry out such a sentence.

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.

I've only spoken about people overthrowing their own government - or rather - an illegitimate usurper government within their own country. But it requires that they're wise enough to make a constitution which includes the laws I've advocated - that any government that breaks the constitutional law by removing democratic rights and carrying out genocide is illegitimate and legally allowed to overthrow.

You must by default also support the removing of Saddam by any means necessary to include a foreign power doing so.

If the local population is in favor of the idea of bringing in a foreign power for help, it's certainly an idea worthy of support. For instance when the cowardly Bush Senio promised air support for shia and curd rebellions, then at the last minute withdraw the support and left the curds and shias to a certain death. If he had continued, then both Iraqis and Americans who are currently angry with the Iraq war would have been a lot happier. Also if the Iraq war hadn't been based on oil theft rather than anything else, people would have been happier.

Again laws exist for more then moral reasons.

Your ardent love for dictatorship rule and terror is beginning to shine through with this "control people" idea of yours. Again I must point out that laws like the nazi law forcing Jews to wear badges was a law to control people, but no laws in a democracy are used to control people.

did indeed have a legimate government removed

A legitimate government shouldn't be overthrown. An illegitimate government may be overthrown by any means necessary. The government Gandhi overthrew was illegitimate because it was a colonial government which oppressed the people. The local country hadn't had a chance to form an own sound constutition, so there, only moral rules could determine whether the government was legitimate or not. If you have formed a local constitution it's foolish if you don't include in that constitution laws protecting the free speech, and the right to overthrow an illegitimate government, like the IX Ammendment of USA does.

Try reading the statement again

I've read the statement again. I said: "If it would have been illegal to discuss [death penalty] then it would have hurt democracy in the USA, wouldn't it?" and you replied: "Not at all". Does that mean you wouldn't think it would hurt democracy if it was forbidden to discuss death penalty?

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

yes, but there's no democratic and peaceful society once an illegitimate usurper government starts removing freedom of speech and similar.

moral equailivency [does] not work.

Why do you keep saying that people shouldn't be treated equally by moral? And by law? While each time I point it out, you withdraw the statement? A Freudian thought, which comes out by mistake but you are eager to hide so as to not reveal your dictatorship sympathies?

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.

But if currently leader x is leading your country, and you're discussing that maybe in the future it's necessary to overthrow the currently established authority x if x continues to remove democratic rights and starts the genocide he has been discussing. Should people discussing that in your opinion be considered criminal and in your opinion be punished for it?

If not, then again your attempt at a general statement contradicts the individual cases you would apply the statement to. As long as you can't point out the causality behind your opinions, your generalized statements tend to have very little correlation to the practical examples.

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.

Whatever law an illegitimate leader passes isn't valid law. The law that existed before he went to power exists, and the constitution should in all countries support the overthrowing of such a madman. Like the IX Ammendment and the Australian law does, for instance.

Lenin and crew came into power from a rebellion to overthrow the established authority which had become repressive

You need to read your history a bit more careful. Lenin overthrew the oppressive Tsar Romanov (who used concentration camps for political dissenters), and thereby enabled the creation of a democratic constitution, in the March revolution. The March revolution was a legitimate revolt against an oppressive maniac. However, Lenin broke the constitutional law by making a coup in the October revolution, where he took power even though he only got 1/3rd of the votes in the election. According to my view that makes the March revolution legitimate, but the October revolution illegitimate. In your view, it seems to make the March revolution illegitimate (because Tsar Romanov still had his Tsar position), but the November revolution legitimate because it won?!! You have pretty strange sympathies, I must say.

without maintaining a consistent approach in doing so.

The lack of consistence is in your failure to see how the practical applications of your attempts at generalized statements, which aren't causality-based, contradict your generalized statements in several cases.

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.

Try to define the concepts of peaceful overthrow and violent overthrow. In the beginning of the discussion you said overthrow at all shouldn't in your opinion be allowed. Now you say violent overthrow shouldn't in your opinion be allowed, even if the leader is a genocidal dictator maniac.

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.

So you mean the German people should have hugged trees to get rid of Hitler, and if they ever considered using any other method for overthrowing him they would in your opinion be criminals? No wonder so many are afraid of overthrowing dictators if there are people calling them criminals for even considering it unless they ask him nicely to step away from power. You must understand that after a certain point where the dictator doesn't allow free speech, it's obvious that hugging trees doesn't work anymore. Those who asked Hitler to nicely step away from power were sent to concentration camps a few at the time during the entire period. Those who tried to kill Hitler with bombs were close to succeeding, unfortunately they didn't, so they were sentenced by the illegitimate law enforcement of Hitler's usurper government, a government which was illegitimate because it went against the constitutional law.

[Redleg]

How would you know? Were you there?

Were you there?

The study of history determines that my statement is accurate.

It seems your stuck on misreading statements, incorrect application of moral equilevency and using moral relativity to argue a point that does not exist. You still have not shown a single document or source that states the legal right exists to advocate violence to overthrow the established authority.

BTW stating that laws exist for other reasons besided morals does not equate to being a dictator - but since your stuck on moral equilevency and moral relatitivity you failed to see that point. It also seems that you are not consistent with your application of moral equilevency.

The legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority does not exist. It is not protected speech in any nation that I know of.

The legal right to advocate the removal of a corrupt leader exists - the legal right to advocate the peaceful overthrow of the established authority exists and is protected speech.

If you can't not approach the arguement without the attempt at moral relativity then there is no point in discussing the issue. Your not even consistent with it - nor did you comprehend the point about Lenin. He rose to power from the overthrow of the established authority that no longer represented the people.

Again it seems your stuck on your own idealogue point, attempts at protraying my statements as something other then what is stated, attempts at ad hominem arguements, futhermore you have failed to show even one constitution that grants the people the legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the government and/or established authority.

People who make statements like these don't have a leg to stand on in their arguement in the first place.
Has this inconsistency got something to do with your liking for Indo-Europeans and Aryans over others?

The Aryan Nation is a group I detest because of the advocation of violence against others because of their race. Next time pay attention to what is written not what you believe and interpated it to be.

The advocation of the violent overthrow of the established government is not a legal right - it can however be a moral obligation. If you don't understand that point, then continue to believe I support dictators, the nazis and whomever else you want. And you will continue to be just as wrong. Moral obligations take precedence of legal rights - try reading the Declartion of Independence sometime. It does not discuss legal rights - but moral rights and obligations of the people.

[Redleg]

Since it seems that you are misusing the term moral equilevency lets review what it really means. Like I stated very early on - I do not play moral equilevency games.

It also seems that you are not even following the proper meaning of the term.

A good written document on the subject

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/gaddis.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_equivalence

Then there is your use of moral relativism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Your arguement in attempting to compare my opinion to supporting dictatorship and nazism demonstrates these points very well. If your going to argue that my postion is wrong provide concrete evidence in the form of constitutions that state there exists a legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Were you there?

No, but unlike your view my view agrees with that of the historians.

The study of history determines that my statement is accurate.

Prove it, because it's against everything historical research has shown

BTW stating that laws exist for other reasons besided morals does not equate to being a dictator

That's what dictators say.

but since your stuck on moral equilevency

Equality before morals and law is a democratic principle. You have the right to express your disliking for it, but applying it in practise would be anti-democratic.

Your not even consistent with it - nor did you comprehend the point about Lenin. He rose to power from the overthrow of the established authority that no longer represented the people.

His October revolution overthrew a legitimate government, so he committed a crime against constitution. That's exactly what I wrote above.

People who make statements like these don't have a leg to stand on in their arguement in the first place.

So you're against freedom of speech? What am I according to you allowed to say in this discussion then?

The Aryan Nation is a group I detest because of the advocation of violence against others because of their race. Next time pay attention to what is written not what you believe and interpated it to be.

According to the type of laws I and most democratic countries support, they're illegal too, because advocating violence against someone based on race, religion or sexuality is both illegal and immoral according to our system. However, if those people would come to power by election or coup, in your opinion they should be allowed to speak of such things AND in your opinion be legally allowed carry them out, and in your opinion anyone who opposed them should be considered criminal, and in your opinion be punished. That's a view you keep confirming that you're holding. That seems to be where we are disagreeing. You think that law should officially call for the heads of freedom fighters against a corrupt, illegitimate regime, while I think constitution should encourage freedom fight against dictators of the type like Hitler, by declaring anyone who removes democratic rights or carries out genocide should immediately be labelled illegitimate. Since you're still sticking to your idea and I'm still sticking to mine there's no need to discuss the matter further. In exiting the debate, I'm just as a friend going to point out that I think you should know the practical consequences of all attempted generalized statements you make. Try to make a synthesis of your thoughts sometime! Try to think of real, historical and hypothetical future examples and see what your statements would mean in those contexts!

Moral obligations take precedence of legal rights - try reading the Declartion of Independence sometime.

Finally you're agreeing to my opinion that laws are and should be based on moral values and not, as you first claimed, on controlling and terrorizing people.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Since it seems that you are misusing the term moral equilevency lets review what it really means. Like I stated very early on - I do not play moral equilevency games.

It also seems that you are not even following the proper meaning of the term.

A good written document on the subject

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/gaddis.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_equivalence

Then there is your use of moral relativism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Your arguement in attempting to compare my opinion to supporting dictatorship and nazism demonstrates these points very well. If your going to argue that my postion is wrong provide concrete evidence in the form of constitutions that state there exists a legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority.

Then I'm afraid you're abusing the word. That moral equivalency definition means that if you say x did y, but z did w, so x isn't better than y. Well, that's not the point of my examples. The point of my examples were that if you say a statement "y is true for all x", I point out different x for which y doesn't hold. When you make a generalized statement such as "all blue cars are dangerous" after seeing 5 blue cars which were dangerous, then you're not basing your generalized statement on causality, but on correlation. If a statement is based on correlation instead of causality it usually means that if you keep searching you usually find hordes of counter-examples - for instance if you look at more blue cars you see that there are thousands of secure blue cars. The same thing applies to this debate. You stated a moral and legal opinion, but when examples where brought up when that moral and legal principle would imply things you didn't really mean, you switched between defending the general principle you stated (which implied things you didn't mean) and saying that you didn't mean the things that statement implied. It's as if you were saying "all blue cars are dangerous", and then I show one blue car after another which is safe, upon which you say "yes, that car is safe", followed by me saying "so it's not correct to state that all blue cars are dangerous?" then you say "I don't play moral equivalency games, and all blue cars are dangerous".

So the correct term you're looking for isn't moral equivalency, it's synthesis. While analysis is the action of "taking something apart in order to study it", synthesis is putting together principles and seeing the consequences they imply in a practical situation. The analysis would be you looking at 5 unsecure cars and seeing that they were all blue, thus stating that "all blue cars are unsafe". Your synthesis, by looking at blue cars in reality, you find that there are blue cars which are safe, and that car color isn't causally related to safety properties of the car. That's the purpose of synthesis - trying as hard as you can to find counter-examples to whatever thesis you stated after an analysis, to see if the attempt at a general statement was good or not.

[Redleg]

No, but unlike your view my view agrees with that of the historians.

Not at all - historians dont use moral equilevency

Prove it, because it's against everything historical research has shown

Did the German People revolt against Hilter......

That's what dictators say.

Tsk Tsk

Equality before morals and law is a democratic principle. You have the right to express your disliking for it, but applying it in practise would be anti-democratic.

Equality is not moral equilevency.

His October revolution overthrew a legitimate government, so he committed a crime against constitution. That's exactly what I wrote above.

And you did not follow the arguement that was given.. Continue on with your moral equalivency.

So you're against freedom of speech? What am I according to you allowed to say in this discussion then?

Incorrect once again. Using Hate speech is not freedom of speech.

According to the type of laws I and most democratic countries support, they're illegal too, because advocating violence against someone based on race, religion or sexuality is both illegal and immoral according to our system. However, if those people would come to power by election or coup, in your opinion they should be allowed to speak of such things AND in your opinion be legally allowed carry them out, and in your opinion anyone who opposed them should be considered criminal, and in your opinion be punished. That's a view you keep confirming that you're holding. That seems to be where we are disagreeing. You think that law should officially call for the heads of freedom fighters against a corrupt, illegitimate regime, while I think constitution should encourage freedom fight against dictators of the type like Hitler, by declaring anyone who removes democratic rights or carries out genocide should immediately be labelled illegitimate. Since you're still sticking to your idea and I'm still sticking to mine there's no need to discuss the matter further. In exiting the debate, I'm just as a friend going to point out that I think you should know the practical consequences of all attempted generalized statements you make. Try to make a synthesis of your thoughts sometime! Try to think of real, historical and hypothetical future examples and see what your statements would mean in those contexts!

Again playing the moral equalivency that does not exist. Moral obligations are sometimes not legal rights. Continue on with your false arguements concerning my statements.

And the generalized statements have been yours - so don't attempt to play that game either. You still have not shown a single constitution that states it is a legal right to advocate violence to overthrow the government.

Finally you're agreeing to my opinion that laws are and should be based on moral values and not, as you first claimed, on controlling and terrorizing people.

Not at all - that is what you are reading in the comment. Laws do exist for moral reasons, and they do exist for amoral reasons designed to control the population and their behaviors.

[Redleg]

Then I'm afraid you're abusing the word. That moral equivalency definition means that if you say x did y, but z did w, so x isn't better than y. Well, that's not the point of my examples.

That is exactly what you have done. So don't try to worm your way out of it. Comparing my opinion to nazi doctrine is just that.

So the correct term you're looking for isn't moral equivalency, it's synthesis. While analysis is the action of "taking something apart in order to study it", synthesis is putting together principles and seeing the consequences they imply in a practical situation. The analysis would be you looking at 5 unsecure cars and seeing that they were all blue, thus stating that "all blue cars are unsafe". Your synthesis, by looking at blue cars in reality, you find that there are blue cars which are safe, and that car color isn't causally related to safety properties of the car. That's the purpose of synthesis - trying as hard as you can to find counter-examples to whatever thesis you stated after an analysis, to see if the attempt at a general statement was good or not.

Again attempting to worm your way out of your use of moral equalivency and moral relativity does not make your false arguement any better.

[Redleg]

Finally you're agreeing to my opinion that laws are and should be based on moral values and not, as you first claimed, on controlling and terrorizing people.

And it seems once again not only are you attempting to on purpose misunderstand and misstate my postion - it seems that you are not even paying attention to current events.

The tax on emails - is not a moral law either now is it?

Its been a lot of fun Legio - but you yourself have shown that you are the one that does not understand moral equalivency and use moral relativity without regard to what is actually stated.

Interesting discussion nevertheless - but I am still waiting for one constitution that states that it is a legal right to advocate the violent overthrow of the established authority/government.

Until then keep confusing the moral obligation of the people with legal rights. I again suggest you read the Declartion of Independence. It demonstrates the moral rights and obligation of the people versus the legal right of the people very well.