scott wrote:
>>  Overall, "freedom of speech" is irrelevant. There's no such thing.
>>
>>  There is "freedom of speech" even in dictatorial police states: You are
>> allowed to say whatever you want and have any opinion you want, as 
>> long as
>> it's the correct opinion. If it's the wrong opinion, to jail you go.
>>
>>  How is that different from the "freedom of speech" in so-called "free
>> countries"?
> 
> In free countries you get *very* specific laws about exactly what is 
> illegal to say/write when and where.  For example, giving false details 
> to a police officer, defamation, etc.  In non-free countries there is 
> just some general law that if you say something the government/police 
> don't like you will be arrested.

In non-free countries, the law is against "agitating speech," or 
"counter-revolutionary speech," or "seditious speech," or something 
quite non-specific, and something that can be interpreted however the 
oligarchy orders the court to interpret it.  And many dictatorships 
won't declare that the speech in question is the reason for the arrest 
(although everyone with first-hand knowledge will know it), but either 
quietly off the offender, or arrest him on an entirely different and 
entirely fictitious charge.

Canada is presently toying with the idea that speech critical of certain 
groups is a violation of that groups civil rights; one of their Human 
Rights Commissions is presently pursuing a case against a colunist for 
writing an article which the Muslim plaintiffs found offensive.

The real problem with speech rights in the U.S. is that a lot of the 
legal action is in civil court, where the rules of evidence have been 
rewritten for the comfort and convenience of the legal profession.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message