Freedom of press.

[Dill]

(03-04-2017, 03:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your point falls apart in this case as both examples involved rhetoric coupled with violence, as I pointed out and you failed to acknowledge.  In the future Confederacy violence and rhetoric were hand in glove.  In Weimar Germany political violence was the norm, not the exception.  As we are arguing whether meeting words, and only words, with violence is acceptable or not both of your examples not only fail to prove your point but are poor choices on your part.

The secession and the rise of Nazi Germany were not offered as cases in which meeting only words with violence was acceptable.  They were offered as cases in which people with honorable motives and good arguments failed to win over enough people to their side. Given these and many more examples (e.g., SCOTUS cases involving Dredd Scott and Homer Plessy), my claim was that the "losers" in such cases do not have "only themselves" to blame.

To recap, I said: I don't think that German liberals who couldn't dissuade people from voting Nazi in 1932 had only themselves to blame.

And you said: Given that a large percentage of the population voted for a party other than the NSDAP, and their vote count was actually receding by the time Hitler was appointed (not elected people) I'd say you'd be wrong about that.