>They aren't in preventive prison due to their political ideas but they're being accused of committing very specific and serious crimes, like rebellion, sedition, and embezzlement.
Well, rebellion and sedition _are_ political ideas. Political ideas are not just "more taxes/less taxes", or "healthcare for all/private healthcare" and other regular everyday party differences.
And of course, the kind of political ideas political prisoners all over the world get in jail for in regimes that stifle political expression are more often than not branded "rebellion", "sedition", by those putting them there...
>The whole trial has been live streamed.
Well, the Moscow trials of Stalin were well reported to the masses as well. That's neither here, nor there.
>About your second question, making threats, insulting the Crown, and glorification of terrorism is not just 'singing about the king'.
Sure. But wanting the king dethroned (if not beheaded, for effect) is a totally legit political idea, that was part of most countries progressing to real civic democracy, and people and politicians should be able to express it. In a modern democracy, if it must have some relic of feudal times in the form of a decorative king, said king shouldn't still be anything sacred.
"and glorification of terrorism" there's no shortage of regimes that labeled anything they didn't like "terrorism".
Heck, the British would also be offended by Americans in the colonies "insulting and threatening the King" and called their fighting terrorism, so there's that.
Just because a regime exists, doesn't mean protecting it is just or should continue to exist.
Generally speaking, everything is political but I'm afraid you're confusing ideas with actions.
Those politicians are not in prison for 'having an idea', they're in there for actively acting against the current Spanish Constitution, against the Spanish Law, and against the regional Catalonian Law as well.
All of that using Public Funds.
About free speech, it's a Right with some limits, as any Right. For example, tell me whether in your opinion, thanks to that Right, anyone can 'sing' promoting hate against transsexuals, or promoting to kill Afro-Americans, or to torture children.
>Those politicians are not in prison for 'having an idea', they're in there for actively acting against the current Spanish Constitution, against the Spanish Law, and against the regional Catalonian Law as well.
Well, wasn't Mandela in prison for similar things? Acting against the "current law" is not enough in itself to make one's imprisonment just.
Especially if they didn't hurt/kill anyone, but acted politically (spoke, organized, etc), even if the established laws forbids it.
>About free speech, it's a Right with some limits, as any Right. For example, tell me whether in your opinion, thanks to that Right, anyone can 'sing' promoting hate against transsexuals, or promoting to kill Afro-Americans, or to torture children.
It wouldn't be nice, but they should be able to sing those things. For example there are all kinds of e.g. death metal songs that speak of killing people in satanic rituals, torturing virgins, heck even torturing children should be there. Should metal be banned?
More importantly, when there are "some limits" (as opposed to no), it's not just the blatantly clear cases (e.g. don't talk against killing afro-americans) that are problematic, but the gray ones.
One man's freedom fighter's are another man's terrorists for example, so e.g. the Clash singing about Sandinista could be said to "promote terrorism".
Or e.g. "promoting hate towards the Crown". Well, "God save the Queen, she's not a human being, it's a fascist regime" by Sex Pistols, is a mighty fine song.
Or how about interpretation? Someone might write a song about e.g. black crime in their neighborhood, and it could be interpreted as "racism against blacks" if they're not black themselves.
Or they could consider some "democracy bringing war" celebrated in the media and government, as "resource grabbing" attempt. Should they be able to sing about it?
Well, rebellion and sedition _are_ political ideas. Political ideas are not just "more taxes/less taxes", or "healthcare for all/private healthcare" and other regular everyday party differences.
And of course, the kind of political ideas political prisoners all over the world get in jail for in regimes that stifle political expression are more often than not branded "rebellion", "sedition", by those putting them there...
>The whole trial has been live streamed.
Well, the Moscow trials of Stalin were well reported to the masses as well. That's neither here, nor there.
>About your second question, making threats, insulting the Crown, and glorification of terrorism is not just 'singing about the king'.
Sure. But wanting the king dethroned (if not beheaded, for effect) is a totally legit political idea, that was part of most countries progressing to real civic democracy, and people and politicians should be able to express it. In a modern democracy, if it must have some relic of feudal times in the form of a decorative king, said king shouldn't still be anything sacred.
"and glorification of terrorism" there's no shortage of regimes that labeled anything they didn't like "terrorism".
Heck, the British would also be offended by Americans in the colonies "insulting and threatening the King" and called their fighting terrorism, so there's that.
Just because a regime exists, doesn't mean protecting it is just or should continue to exist.