NeedToUseYou
Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005 From: None of your business Status: offline
|
I'm really confused by what point you are trying to get across here. I understand you are saying their should be restrictions on freedom of speech and there are already that have been there, for a very long time already. Basicly direct violence. I doubt you are arguing that laws that exist already should exist. That is sorta pointless, because almost everyone agrees and they are already laws. So, are you wanting expansion of these restrictions, because you've yet to come out and say what you prefer in anything more than general terms than something like "civilized people balance freedom and safety". You just keep asking if hitler should have had his freedom of speech restricted. Well, on what terms. Before or after he tried to overthrow the government. Because at that point they don't even need to deal with freedom of speech, because he could have been put away forever over that. So, I'm assuming you are going back even further... But it doesn't even really matter, if germany had chosen to take proper action against Hitler for the "tangible physical" crimes he commited, he wouldn't have been in power either. It's not freedom of speech. If anything it would be attributed to enforcement failure of other laws on the books, not a need for more. I mean they did let him out of jail after he tried to overthrow the government. LOL. Maybe they should have executed him for that crime rather than restricting his speech and letting walk the streets. Don't know, that makes more sense to me, anyway. I prefer crime to be delegated whenever possible into the sphere of judging actions which there were plenty of before he took complete control. If they had dealt with the "action" based crimes properly, why even screw with speech. Seriously, people say shit all the time. 99.99999% of the time it leads to absolutely nothing. Examples "I'll kill you bitch". "We should kill the immigrants at the border, then they'd think twice". "We should nuke the whole middle east and be done with it". "Someone comes on my property I'll blow their fucking head off". Etc... So, I guess my ultimate point here is. Why focus on speech, when there are much less subjective and more tanglible crimes one could deal with. I think a better question might be why did the Germans (A fair percentage anyway), continue to support him after he was caught overthrowing the government. And why was this allowed by those in the present government(let him out of jail in 8 months). I couldn't imagine a person caught actively acting against the government not being hanged unless it was supported by members of the government.
|