♫anna♫
Global Moderator 
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 12, 2013 15:13:56 GMT
The US concept of the 1st Admendment and Free Speech doesn't exist in many other other contries. I live in Germany where similar laws exist to suppress any speech that could be seen as supportive of "naziism". True a lot of these often contradictory nazi views are disturbing and insulting, but either we have free speech or we don't. I understand Austria's wish to protect it's international reputation and not suffer financial sanctions, but we need a future where free speech is a human right. We can openly debate with any extremists on their views publicly, calmly and academically on TV, radio, etc. instead of censoring and imprisoning these people! That's how we triumph over tyranny!
www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/10/austrian-court-finds-neo-nazi-2-accomplices-glorifying-nazism-hands-down-prison/ QUOTE:
Austrian court finds neo-Nazi, 2 accomplices, of glorifying Nazism, hands down prison termsJan. 10, 2013 VIENNA – An Austrian court has convicted a leading neo-Nazi and two accomplices of glorifying Nazism through a website and sentenced them to prison terms of up to nine years. Gottfried Kuessel was given a nine-year prison sentence Friday for being the founder of the "Alpen-Donau" website. He already spent time in prison in the 1990s on conviction of trying to form a successor to the Nazi party. The two others — Felix Binder and Wilhelm Anderle — were sentenced to seven and 4 ½ years respectively. The website is no longer active, but defied years of Austrian efforts to shut it down because it was housed on a U.S. server. Austrian officials said that left their hands tried because of U.S. free speech laws. Austria bans glorification of the Nazi era.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2013 16:01:03 GMT
Most countries do have restrictions on free speech; we do in the UK. For example we can't blaspheme, or stir up racial hatred, or defame (though defamation is in most cases only a civil matter). The USA is right out on a limb if it has no restrictions on what people can say
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2013 16:13:41 GMT
It's often difficult to draw a line between free speech and between deliberately inciting hatred.
I don't have much sympathy for Nazi or neo-Nazi ideas (though of course I can always understand patriotism because it's got a very strong appeal to me as a Brit) but I worry about the whole idea of trying to control people's thoughts.
Just because you disagree with people's opinionis is no reason to try and supress them.
And the whole idea of putting people in prison because of their ideas is crazy to me.
Prison should be for real criminals and not for those who just think differently from the majpority.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Jan 12, 2013 16:43:52 GMT
Most countries do have restrictions on free speech; we do in the UK. For example we can't blaspheme, or stir up racial hatred, or defame (though defamation is in most cases only a civil matter). The USA is right out on a limb if it has no restrictions on what people can say You can't blaspheme where? Walking down a public street, talking to someone and you might be overheard? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2013 17:04:54 GMT
Chill! This has nothing (thank Christ!) to do with swearing. But I see I am out of touch: they have been repealed. I refer you to Wiki:
Blasphemy laws in the United Kingdom were specific to blasphemy against Christianity. The last attempted prosecution under these laws was in 2007 when the fundamentalist group Christian Voice sought a private prosecution against the BBC over its broadcasting of the show Jerry Springer: The Opera (which includes a scene depicting Jesus, dressed as a baby, professing to be "a bit gay"). The charges were rejected by the City of Westminster magistrates court. Christian Voice applied to have this ruling overturned by the High Court, but the application was rejected. The court found that the common law blasphemy offences specifically did not apply to stage productions (s. 2(4) of the Theatres Act 1968) and broadcasts (s. 6 of the Broadcasting Act 1990).[71][72]
The last successful blasphemy prosecution (also a private prosecution) was Whitehouse v. Lemon in 1977, when Denis Lemon, the editor of Gay News, was found guilty. His newspaper had published James Kirkup's poem The Love that Dares to Speak its Name, which allegedly vilified Christ and his life. Lemon was fined £500 and given a suspended sentence of nine months imprisonment. It had been "touch and go", said the judge, whether he would actually send Lemon to jail.[73] In 2002, a deliberate and well-publicised public repeat reading of the poem took place on the steps of St Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square, but failed to lead to any prosecution.[74]
The last person in Britain to be imprisoned for blasphemy was John William Gott on 9 December 1921. He had three previous convictions for blasphemy when he was prosecuted for publishing two pamphlets which satirised the biblical story of Jesus entering Jerusalem (Matthew 21:2-7), comparing Jesus to a circus clown. He was sentenced to nine months' hard labour.
The last prosecution for blasphemy in Scotland was in 1843.[75] In 1697, a Scottish court hanged Thomas Aikenhead for blasphemy.
On 5 March 2008, an amendment was passed to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in England and Wales. (Common law is abolished, not repealed.) The Act received royal assent on 8 May 2008,[76][77] and the relevant section came into force on 8 July 2008.[78][79]
The 1989 film Visions of Ecstasy was the only film ever banned in the UK for blasphemy. Following the 2008 repeal of the blasphemy law, the film was eventually classified by the BBFC for release as 18-rated in 2012.[80]
|
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Jan 12, 2013 20:09:53 GMT
wow.
seven years for speaking his mind (ill or otherwise).
wow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Jan 12, 2013 20:15:56 GMT
Chill! This has nothing (thank Christ!) to do with swearing. But I see I am out of touch: they have been repealed. I refer you to Wiki:
Blasphemy laws in the United Kingdom were specific to blasphemy against Christianity. The last attempted prosecution under these laws was in 2007 when the fundamentalist group Christian Voice sought a private prosecution against the BBC over its broadcasting of the show Jerry Springer: The Opera (which includes a scene depicting Jesus, dressed as a baby, professing to be "a bit gay"). The charges were rejected by the City of Westminster magistrates court. Christian Voice applied to have this ruling overturned by the High Court, but the application was rejected. The court found that the common law blasphemy offences specifically did not apply to stage productions (s. 2(4) of the Theatres Act 1968) and broadcasts (s. 6 of the Broadcasting Act 1990).[71][72]
The last successful blasphemy prosecution (also a private prosecution) was Whitehouse v. Lemon in 1977, when Denis Lemon, the editor of Gay News, was found guilty. His newspaper had published James Kirkup's poem The Love that Dares to Speak its Name, which allegedly vilified Christ and his life. Lemon was fined £500 and given a suspended sentence of nine months imprisonment. It had been "touch and go", said the judge, whether he would actually send Lemon to jail.[73] In 2002, a deliberate and well-publicised public repeat reading of the poem took place on the steps of St Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square, but failed to lead to any prosecution.[74]
The last person in Britain to be imprisoned for blasphemy was John William Gott on 9 December 1921. He had three previous convictions for blasphemy when he was prosecuted for publishing two pamphlets which satirised the biblical story of Jesus entering Jerusalem (Matthew 21:2-7), comparing Jesus to a circus clown. He was sentenced to nine months' hard labour.
The last prosecution for blasphemy in Scotland was in 1843.[75] In 1697, a Scottish court hanged Thomas Aikenhead for blasphemy.
On 5 March 2008, an amendment was passed to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in England and Wales. (Common law is abolished, not repealed.) The Act received royal assent on 8 May 2008,[76][77] and the relevant section came into force on 8 July 2008.[78][79]
The 1989 film Visions of Ecstasy was the only film ever banned in the UK for blasphemy. Following the 2008 repeal of the blasphemy law, the film was eventually classified by the BBFC for release as 18-rated in 2012.[80]
As an American who takes freedom of speech as sacred and doesnt have to think about it, again, wow. I mean I have some complaints of late about the monoplized press here and the invasiveness of the Patriot Act, but basically we say whatever we want. I just assumed everyone else had freedom of speech too. I'm surprised. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2013 20:59:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Jan 12, 2013 21:29:43 GMT
It's not typical. It's just hysteria after an incident. We're all okay here that after a major tragedy occurs, there's sensitivity and you know better (most do) than to set alarms off at something you suggested which sounds similar. It's not about ongoing limitations on speech. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 12, 2013 23:18:41 GMT
It's not typical. It's just hysteria after an incident. We're all okay here that after a major tragedy occurs, there's sensitivity and you know better (most do) than to set alarms off at something you suggested which sounds similar. It's not about ongoing limitations on speech. I wish that was true, Hunny, but for many years now - ever since the 1990s to be sure - there have been lots of attempts to restrict free speech - by feminists complaining about 'sexist language' and even 'sexist body language;' by antiracists trying to prevent what they seem (often completely irrationally) as racist; by gays trying to prevent what they call 'heterosexism' and 'homophobia' though they don't seem to be bothered about 'homosexism' and 'heterophobia;' by atheists trying to prevent religious believers from practising their beliefs; by religious fundamentalists trying to prevent people from getting advice on abortion or from teaching evolution; and so it goes on. The Americans suffer from the delusion that they're free but they're actually far MORE repressive and unfree that Britain or any Western European country I know. I vividly remember a woman at US immigration threatening to arrest me for 'running down the United States' Some freedom of speech, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2013 7:13:24 GMT
Anna in her opening sentence says: "The US concept of the 1st Admendment and Free Speech doesn't exist in many other other countries" but this isn't strictly true. For example the European Convention on Human Rights: Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas, but allows restrictions for:
interests of national security
territorial integrity or public safety
prevention of disorder or crime
protection of health or morals
protection of the reputation or the rights of others
preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence
maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciaryOK, the exceptions give plenty of scope, but I can think of instances where American citizens are not free to say what they like. Try to incite a crime or lie to the Inland Revenue and you'll find yourself in big trouble. England and Wales have abolished criminal defamation (along with blasphemy!) but I see that there are US states that have criminal defamation laws:
Between 1992 and August 2004, 41 criminal defamation cases were brought to court in the United States, among which six defendants were convicted. From 1965 to 2004, 16 cases ended in final conviction, among which nine resulted in jail sentences (average sentence, 173 days). Other criminal cases resulted in fines (average fine, 1700 USD), probation (average of 547 days), community service (on average 120 hours), or writing a letter of apology
The US has its list of proscribed organisations, and I'll bet someone trying to recruit to Al Qaeda is going to find themselves locked up a lot quicker than the neo-Nazis written about here. You can argue that the Nazis aren't a terrorist organisation, but if a country deems the party a national threat, it amounts to the same thing. The difference is a matter merely of fact and degree. |
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 13, 2013 9:59:04 GMT
It's not typical. It's just hysteria after an incident. We're all okay here that after a major tragedy occurs, there's sensitivity and you know better (most do) than to set alarms off at something you suggested which sounds similar. It's not about ongoing limitations on speech.
You misunderstood me! First off I would oppose any prosecution of that "poem writer" under anti-free speech or "thought crime" laws.
Secondly the poem writer is not a Native American as is the case with most US citizens. If she honestly feels that the "oppressive US government and society" makes it understandable how some creep would shoot little boys and girls over and over again then she should be helped to get out of this, in her eyes, "horrible country". I would support a voluntary repatriation of this person to the country that her ancestors originated from. That's doing her a favor!
The poem writer was simply suspended from school. Schools can suspend students for a number of non-criminal activities and I'm fine with that! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2013 11:28:43 GMT
The school probably acted within its legal rights to suspend the teenager, though whether she can take any civil action remains to be seen, I suppose. The boy who drew something that looked like a gun was arrested.
Are you saying that the poem-writing girl wasn't an American citizen, or are you suggesting that because she doesn't come from a Sioux tribe or other equivalent she should be removed to another country? Presumably all Anglo-Saxon looking Americans who write similar stuff would return to Britain ...or would that be Ireland?
I'm confused.
Oh, I notice now that you said most Americans are native, so you can't mean that. Are you saying that she doesn't have the rights of most because she's black or because she's an immigrant? If the latter, how do you know?
You may not have wanted to prosecute her but I did get the impression that you would be quite keen on her forcible removal from the country.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Jan 13, 2013 16:20:06 GMT
Thank you Skylark for the clarifications  As for the girl who wrote a poem, geez she's just a kid! Give her a counselor to talk to for a period, to make sure she's ok is the worst I'd do to her, and honestly, her mom should have told her better than to document that she thinks it's a good ("understandable") idea too, when someone's just done such a horrible horrible shooting. You dont give indication of any kind during the period of hysteria after a major tragedy, everyone knows that. If she didnt, well hence the counselor - just to make sure she understands why it was a big deal, and that she doesnt actually like the idea of such a thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2013 16:41:46 GMT
Maybe I was wrong to introduce the teenage poet because she is the subject of another thread.
I would be interested to discuss whether US and UK free speech rights are really so very different. I can't speak for Austria or Germany though because I know nothing about them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Jan 13, 2013 21:38:01 GMT
Maybe I was wrong to introduce the teenage poet because she is the subject of another thread. I would be interested to discuss whether US and UK free speech rights are really so very different. I can't speak for Austria or Germany though because I know nothing about them. I honestly get the feeling that - except for a very few exceptions, like "dont yell fire! in a crowded theater - Americans are free to say anything at all. That is, there are social reasons to curtail your language (like you dont call the muscle-builder names till he explodes, for one example but not becasuse it's outlawed (see?), because it will get you punched very hard. So also are there organizations and types of people who want to squash certain words, PC-wise. Well, again, these are not squashed BY LAWS AGAINST THEM, they're just discouraged by those who after all have a right to express their opinion, even if it annoys, too. So, yea, I think we have total freedom of speech, legally. I could even say I think we should go k.ill all the polit.icians and take our government back (no law against saying it, but there may be a flag raised if you post it somewhere because "interests of national security". (, ie, you could end up being watched or at least checked out and listed by Homeland Security or the FBI, but you'd never know about it. It isnt like anyone would come and arrest you for your thoughts. So yea, except for common sense exceptions about not WANTING to say certain things, I've always felt I could go stand on a soapbox on a sidewalk somewhere and preach any kind of cult talk, neo-nazi talk, bring down the government talk, anything, anything at all. The only thing one might run up against as to censorship would be the feelings of the crowd, lol! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2013 7:21:02 GMT
I'd be surprised even iin the US someone could stand up and incite people to kill politicians without getting arrested. What you say about social reasons for curtailing your language generally applies here too; we have no laws against using PC language either, though I do accept that we have laws against inciting racial hatred, and we also have common law "breach of the peace" laws which (and I'm vague about th details) enable police to remove people whose words or behaviour are likely to provoke violence.
Freedom of speech is about more than fear of not getting arrested, though. Even in America someone can be sued for defamation. And can you go to court to enforce your right to free speech? Signatories to the European Convention can; they can take action against a government that tries to stifle their freedom of expression without lawful authority. I'm guessing that the courts have already upheld Austria's right to ban nazi propaganda.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 14, 2013 13:11:35 GMT
The school probably acted within its legal rights to suspend the teenager, though whether she can take any civil action remains to be seen, I suppose. The boy who drew something that looked like a gun was arrested. Are you saying that the poem-writing girl wasn't an American citizen, or are you suggesting that because she doesn't come from a Sioux tribe or other equivalent she should be removed to another country? Presumably all Anglo-Saxon looking Americans who write similar stuff would return to Britain ...or would that be Ireland? I'm confused. Oh, I notice now that you said most Americans are native, so you can't mean that. Are you saying that she doesn't have the rights of most because she's black or because she's an immigrant? If the latter, how do you know? You may not have wanted to prosecute her but I did get the impression that you would be quite keen on her forcible removal from the country.
America promotes the pursuit of happiness and anyone, who thinks the US is evil, oppressive and drives people to become mass murderers should voluntarily become a citizen of a country where they won't feel these murderous impulses! Government support to this end is OK in my book! |
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 14, 2013 13:16:36 GMT
I'd be surprised even iin the US someone could stand up and incite people to kill politicians without getting arrested. What you say about social reasons for curtailing your language generally applies here too; we have no laws against using PC language either, though I do accept that we have laws against inciting racial hatred, and we also have common law "breach of the peace" laws which (and I'm vague about th details) enable police to remove people whose words or behaviour are likely to provoke violence. Freedom of speech is about more than fear of not getting arrested, though. Even in America someone can be sued for defamation. And can you go to court to enforce your right to free speech? Signatories to the European Convention can; they can take action against a government that tries to stifle their freedom of expression without lawful authority. I'm guessing that the courts have already upheld Austria's right to ban nazi propaganda.
Government, especially big government, protects itself first! The lives of innocent children are secondary on government's agenda. It should be the other way around! |
|
|
|
Post by toby on Mar 3, 2013 12:16:06 GMT
Toby's comment.:- What bothers me is how you can so easily be labelled for promoting a point of view, on another (lesser), board I mentioned that Mass Immigration into the UK was bad, I was called neo-nazi for this !!
It does show how you can get self-serving goons taking a moderate idea and making it extremist and the fear of being labelled a Fascist, Nazi, Racist, etc has put a bit of a damper on discussions about forced Mass Immigration, this is a retrograde step.
Roma are already arriving in the UK from all over, they have been squeezed out of east european countries who made them unwelcome so they come here.
Nobody really wants Roma living next door although you will get Leftoid Panders telling you otherwise, I wonder what line the Authorities will take when the complaints about Roma in the UK reach a deafening level ??
I also note that of the 60 thousand Romanians in the UK (that we know about), over 20 thousand of them have done time, thats a good 30% criminals folks, at end of 2013 there will be Millions more flooding in, god help us all !
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2013 21:17:39 GMT
Toby, if you give us statistics like that - please provide a link"
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 3, 2013 21:46:49 GMT
Toby, if you give us statistics like that - please provide a link"
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2001782/Romanian-migrants-send-home-500-000-day-UK.htmlQUOTE:An estimated two million Romanians work abroad, including 60,000 thought to live in the UK. Most live in North London and the South East of England. A further 25,000 each year are given work permits to enter Britain. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 3, 2013 22:09:38 GMT
I've found that immigration (like many other topics) seems to polarize too many people into dogmatic positions.
As someone who belongs to some pretty extreme left and right wing boards (as well as many more that are broader in their attitudes) I've found the total incomprehension of people on either extreme side about even being able to understand why people could possibly think differently amazing.
And too many people put you into boxes. I've been told that because I support the death penalty, I'm pro-life on abortion and oppose the whole welfare culture I must be right wing. On the other hand I've also been told that because I oppose globalization, support the National Health Service, support prisoner's rights and don't agree with the whole attack on human rights I must be left wing.
On the immigration issue I support (ideally) a total ban.
On the question of free speech I prefer to be liberal rather than authoritarianism.
And I'm totally against the whole idea of imprisoning people for what they BELIEVE rather than what they DO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2013 19:16:43 GMT
Toby, if you give us statistics like that - please provide a link"
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2001782/Romanian-migrants-send-home-500-000-day-UK.htmlQUOTE:An estimated two million Romanians work abroad, including 60,000 thought to live in the UK. Most live in North London and the South East of England. A further 25,000 each year are given work permits to enter Britain. It was the criminal record allegation I doubted, Anna. I am surprised we are giving our work permits to people with criminal records - or does Toby mean they committed the crimes after coming here? Either way, I'd like to know where he got his facts. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2013 14:25:51 GMT
I don;t remember the specific statistics but I do know that most crieme over the alst few years has been committed by immigrants especially from Eastern Europe
|
|
biglinmarshall.proboards.com/thread/7917/bits-pieces-magazine-issue-2024
Nov 4, 2024 17:39:29 GMT
*
biglinmarshall.proboards.com/thread/7917/bits-pieces-magazine-issue-2024
Nov 4, 2024 17:39:29 GMT
*
yay! 
thanks
Nov 2, 2024 17:09:05 GMT
Oct 23, 2024 18:34:05 GMT