Why do governments recognize free speech to be more dangerous than guns, bombs and terrorism?
Whу dο governments around thе world, іn particular thе former Soviet Union іn thе past admit free speech tο bе more реrіlουѕ thаn guns, bombs аnd terrorism?
The pen is mightier than the sword. Guns and bombs may scare people for a few hours, but a well prepared essay on the atrocities of a dictator or imperial government may incite a well-read audience to revolution. Just look at Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, and it’s effects on the American people in the 1700s.
because nothing is so powerful as an thought whose time has come
Because it’s a threat to liberalism, the worldwide plague of the modern era.
Simple. For statists like the Communists, Democrats and Nazis, there is no superior threat to their power than for people to know FACTS about them.
According to Congressional Democrats, they estimate about 5% of voters meaningful what they’re up to is about their limit.
Their is no defense against thoughts. Excellent or terrible.
Because speaking freely against a oppressive government will cause people to rebel against the said government. That’s why the USSR censored free speech.
Got any facts? Or are you just wasting time in detention for poor grades and a poor mind-set in school?
Only the current administration feels this way. Clearly shown by the election results in Mass. and the recent Rassmussen polls that show the margin of this country does not support either the House bill or the Senate bill to be in the best interest of this nation. If Democrats and Liberal truly reckon the country as a total wants either of these bills passed as is, then add them to the ballots this November and let the citizens vote on the legislation.
ILL BET YOU LOVE PORK
Your question needs more parameters. To some point your question is accurate, but for open discussion, it would be an inaccurate conclusion to state that free speech is more perilous then firepower to a repressive government.
For example: There were real people that lived within Pre-Nazi Germany. They had firearms in their homes. Hitler used his freedom of speech to state his case, lure the people’s support over to him, then after he was in power he confiscated their firearms. Then once the people’s ability to rise against him was sterilized, Hitler then instituted a harsh squashing of freedom of speech. In this situation, firearms were taken first, then speech. Firearms were more perilous to Hitler’s repressive regime.
This situation is a classic take over of a free people. It is a lesson for all to see: We must beware of elegant political speakers who can sway people with empty promises. Once we give them the power, then only a small percentage will stand and fight for the margin.
Conclusion: Disarming a people comes first, and silencing their voice comes second. But both go hand in hand.
.