|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 137 responses total. |
sholmes
|
|
response 23 of 137:
| 
Feb 22 05:07 UTC 2006 |
This brings us back to the cartoon issue.
|
tod
|
|
response 24 of 137:
|
Feb 22 09:08 UTC 2006 |
MIXED SIGNALS
|
twenex
|
|
response 25 of 137:
|
Feb 22 12:48 UTC 2006 |
Re: #2. Whether or not A. has no statute of limitations, who says it has to
be six years or less? In Europe people can still be charged for warcrimes
committed during WWII.
a lot of these countries in europe have never had constitutionally protected
free speech, why do you think the u.s. of a. was formed
Never? What PLANET are you from? The USA was formed two-hundred-odd years ago.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 26 of 137:
|
Feb 22 14:59 UTC 2006 |
War crimes and murder typically do not have statues of limitations.
Most other crimes do, and they typically do not apply if the person was
charged within the statutory time period, but caught later on.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 27 of 137:
|
Feb 22 17:23 UTC 2006 |
re #25: What are the guarantees of free speech in the British constitution?
|
tod
|
|
response 28 of 137:
|
Feb 22 17:32 UTC 2006 |
re #27
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the
European Convention on Human Rights
|
nharmon
|
|
response 29 of 137:
|
Feb 22 17:36 UTC 2006 |
Is there such a thing as the British constitution?
|
tod
|
|
response 30 of 137:
|
Feb 22 17:40 UTC 2006 |
Magna Whatta or something silly, right..
|
twenex
|
|
response 31 of 137:
|
Feb 22 18:24 UTC 2006 |
Re: #29. No. And tod, it's Carta. And Latin.
Re: #25. The Human Rights Act, which judges can rule supersedes (other)
British laws. Notwithstanding, the claim was not that BRITAIN, specifically,
has no guarantee of free speech, but that EUROPE, in general, didn't.
See, for example, the Guarantee of Basic Rights in the German Constitution
("Basic Law")
|
nharmon
|
|
response 32 of 137:
|
Feb 22 18:27 UTC 2006 |
Does Germany still have free speech when they prohibit denial of the
holocaust? If we were German citizens would we be calling for them to
take down their blue ribbon?
|
tod
|
|
response 33 of 137:
|
Feb 22 19:00 UTC 2006 |
re #31
Right, Manna Cotti, that's it
|
mcnally
|
|
response 34 of 137:
|
Feb 22 19:00 UTC 2006 |
re #31:
Notwithstanding, the claim was not that BRITAIN, specifically,
has no guarantee of free speech, but that EUROPE, in general, didn't.
No, actually, the claim was that several (or perhaps many, not sure
of the wording in the original post) European nations don't have
*constitutional* guarantees of free speech.
|
tod
|
|
response 35 of 137:
|
Feb 22 19:05 UTC 2006 |
The USA has free speech but lacks free thought.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 36 of 137:
|
Feb 22 19:25 UTC 2006 |
FAUX NEWS: WE MISREPORT YOU DECIDE
|
khamsun
|
|
response 37 of 137:
|
Feb 22 20:08 UTC 2006 |
there's no big deal with the "freedom of speech" stuff writed in stone
in a constitution.For instance the 1977 USSR constitution, chapter 7
article 50:
"In accordance with the interests of the people and in order to
strengthen and develop the socialist system, citizens of the USSR are
guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings,
street processions and demonstrations."
(for instance:
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.html#chap07)
he, Tovarish, we can write what you want in the constitution!
|
kingjon
|
|
response 38 of 137:
|
Feb 22 20:24 UTC 2006 |
If you put something in a constitution with a qualifier stating purpose, of
course you'll end up with a limited version of it! Look at the 2nd amendment
here, after all. If it had been without qualification I think it would have
survived longer.
|
tod
|
|
response 39 of 137:
|
Feb 22 22:07 UTC 2006 |
They had free speech in France but deGaulle controlled radio & tv.
Free Speech sans free thought
|
twenex
|
|
response 40 of 137:
|
Feb 22 22:44 UTC 2006 |
Re: #32. You can argue all you like whether Germany, or Britain, or France,
or whatever, has free speech according to the American definition. Most
citizens of those countries would say that they do. And unlike in America,
a prime ministerial candidate in those countries couldn't prejudice his
chances by declaring his atheism. How free would he be to say what he liked
if it would?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 41 of 137:
|
Feb 22 23:16 UTC 2006 |
From what I've heard, a candidate in those countries could hurt his chances by
declaring himself to be anything *other* than atheist.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 42 of 137:
|
Feb 22 23:21 UTC 2006 |
Based on other statements you've made it's not clear to me whether
you mean that to be a joke..
|
tod
|
|
response 43 of 137:
|
Feb 22 23:22 UTC 2006 |
And why should he be declaring what his religion is in the first place?
Is the guy running for Pope?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 44 of 137:
|
Feb 22 23:33 UTC 2006 |
Wasn't a joke, but wasn't intended to start serious discussion either. Note in
the previous response -- "And unlike in America, a prime ministerial candidate
in those countries couldn't prejudice his chances by declaring his atheism. How
free would he be to say what he liked if it would?" I merely pointed out that
based on what I've heard it isn't an absence of prejudice over there, merely a
prejudice the other way.
|
tod
|
|
response 45 of 137:
|
Feb 22 23:46 UTC 2006 |
Over where, exactly?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 46 of 137:
|
Feb 23 00:55 UTC 2006 |
Klingon obviously "hears things" from a very narrow and limited set of
sources. What a rebel!
|
marcvh
|
|
response 47 of 137:
|
Feb 23 01:03 UTC 2006 |
I don't think I've ever heard of someone losing an election anywhere in
modern Europe where a pivotal campaign issue was the fact that the
candidate was not an atheist. Can anyone cite even a single example of
this? It sounds like a bunch of baseless slander.
|