> could you please cite at least one instance of what these people or people in similar cases said/wrote that should NOT the punishable, but is under current la

> could you please cite at least one instance of what these people or people in similar cases said/wrote that should NOT the punishable, but is under current law? If I am parsing what you wrote correctly then you are asking me to draw a distinction between different types of speech which should be allowed under law. I don't believe any should be restricted. That includes the classic "shouting `fire' in a crowded theatre" or making threats to someone. Certainly in both cases if actual physical or financial harm results then the speaker can be deemed to have caused harm and measures taken against them. But the outlawing and punishment of the act of speech in and of itself is illogical. In effect hate speech and other laws conflate locution, illocution and perlocution[1]. The effect on the discussion of ideas (e.g. the criticism of Erdogan) in a democracy strike me as obvious, so I won't go into them further. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illocutionary_act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illocutionary_act