They fought a war against an opposing army, not by assassinating people exercising their right to discuss opinions and ideas. In fact they fought FOR the right to have opinions and ideas and to express them. They thought it was so important to protect that right, that they put it into the bill of rights, which specifically states that the right to free speech transcends government. The government that they wanted could only exist if people could freely exchange ideas without fear of being murdered (or imprisoned) for them. That’s why its a particularly bad example.
They fought a war against an opposing army, not by assassinating people exercising their right to discuss opinions and ideas
Of course it’s morally superior to kill a conscript (the British army was largely comprised of conscripts) than it is to kill a propagandist who advocates for political violence. /s
In fact they fought FOR the right to have opinions and ideas and to express them.
Utter rubbish. The war was instigated over matters of taxation and trade.
They thought it was so important to protect that right, that they put it into the bill of rights
It was so important that it was left out of the Constitution and had to be submitted as a bill to amend the Constitution.
Hardly sounds like the defining cause of the rebellion if they forgot to put it in their foundational document the first time around.
Cypher@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
What’s wrong with the example? The revolutionaries killed until they were able to establish a democracy, directly refuting your claim.
OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
They fought a war against an opposing army, not by assassinating people exercising their right to discuss opinions and ideas. In fact they fought FOR the right to have opinions and ideas and to express them. They thought it was so important to protect that right, that they put it into the bill of rights, which specifically states that the right to free speech transcends government. The government that they wanted could only exist if people could freely exchange ideas without fear of being murdered (or imprisoned) for them. That’s why its a particularly bad example.
Cypher@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
Of course it’s morally superior to kill a conscript (the British army was largely comprised of conscripts) than it is to kill a propagandist who advocates for political violence. /s
Utter rubbish. The war was instigated over matters of taxation and trade.
It was so important that it was left out of the Constitution and had to be submitted as a bill to amend the Constitution.
Hardly sounds like the defining cause of the rebellion if they forgot to put it in their foundational document the first time around.