 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptop com> wrote:
> I don't think many people would link blocking a website called "childporn"
> to starting a dictatorship - get some perspective!
This is the perspective: The site contains nothing illegal ("childporn"
is not an illegal word), and moreover, it contains heavy criticism of
internet censorship in Finland.
Now, what does it tell us that a website criticizing internet censorship
in Findland gets censored?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
> At least you have a constitution in the UK we don't, well not a written one.
They are free to pass laws which break basic human rights? Who controls
that they don't (besides, perhaps, international pressure)?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:41:06 -0000, Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom>
did spake, saying:
> On 14 Feb 2008 06:37:57 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>> Warp wrote:
>>> > The biggest problem of all: Nobody cares. The end justifies the
>>> means.
>>
>>> (Welcome to the US)
>>
>> I believe in the US they are much stricter about respecting people's
>> constitutional rights than here. In the US the constitution is something
>> officials *must* obey. Here the constitution is little more than just a
>> set of suggested recommendations.
>
> At least you have a constitution in the UK we don't, well not a written
> one.
Well we do it just exists spread over multiple documents, can be changed
or overruled at any time, and indeed some parts aren't really written down
officially; nevertheless we do have a constitution.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:48:54 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
>> At least you have a constitution in the UK we don't, well not a written
>> one.
>
> They are free to pass laws which break basic human rights? Who controls
> that they don't (besides, perhaps, international pressure)?
EU law has been integrated (partially) into English Law so there's an
appeal procedure there. Likewise any law requires the police to enforce
it, which they may choose not to; and for judges to pass sentence, which
they might choose not to (or sentence a slap-on-the-wrist, or pass the
buck upwards to the higher courts). This all goes hand-in-hand with the
fact that Parliament can make any laws it wants to, repeal any laws it
wants to, and that no Acts it produces can be questioned by a court.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The police having free control over what gets censored and what doesn't,
> independently of whether censoring something is legal or not, and without
> anyone watching over the process, ie. in other words the police can break
> the law without consequences, is one sign of a police state.
>
> Who watches the police so that they don't break the law in this matter?
> Nobody.
Don't you have law-makers there who tell the police what to do? If the
police start doing stupid stuff (like blocking all sites outside of finland)
then surely the law-makers would intervene?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I don't think many people would link blocking a website called
>> "childporn"
>> to starting a dictatorship - get some perspective!
>
> This is the perspective: The site contains nothing illegal ("childporn"
> is not an illegal word),
No, but anything involving child porn is likely to get blocked in a lot of
places, so it can't be a surprise that a site with that name is blocked,
regardless of the content.
> and moreover, it contains heavy criticism of
> internet censorship in Finland.
I suspect that site would have been blocked anyway no matter what its
contents were, but the fact that it contains heavy criticism of the very
organisation that decides what gets blocked, it's no wonder it's blocked. I
mean even if the owner protests that his site shouldn't be blocked, the
officials are likely to put his request to the bottom of the pile and
generally do all they can to make sure it stays blocked.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote in message
news:47b43264$1@news.povray.org...
>> The police having free control over what gets censored and what doesn't,
>> independently of whether censoring something is legal or not, and without
>> anyone watching over the process, ie. in other words the police can break
>> the law without consequences, is one sign of a police state.
>>
>> Who watches the police so that they don't break the law in this matter?
>> Nobody.
>
> Don't you have law-makers there who tell the police what to do? If the
> police start doing stupid stuff (like blocking all sites outside of
> finland) then surely the law-makers would intervene?
How does that help? It's already well into damage by the time it gets to
that stage. And governments tend to strongly favour listening to their
police commissioners than to the protests of people about their police.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> I suspect that site would have been blocked anyway no matter what its
> contents were, but the fact that it contains heavy criticism of the very
> organisation that decides what gets blocked, it's no wonder it's blocked. I
> mean even if the owner protests that his site shouldn't be blocked, the
> officials are likely to put his request to the bottom of the pile and
> generally do all they can to make sure it stays blocked.
Welcome to a totalitarian police state?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:01:56 -0000, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>Well we do it just exists spread over multiple documents, can be changed
>or overruled at any time, and indeed some parts aren't really written down
>officially; nevertheless we do have a constitution.
Thanks for answering Warp.
AFAIK we don't have one document that is our constitution and things are
complicated by England, Wales and NI using Common law whilst Scotland uses civil
law.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:26:18 -0000, Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom>
did spake, saying:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:01:56 -0000, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>>
>> Well we do it just exists spread over multiple documents, can be changed
>> or overruled at any time, and indeed some parts aren't really written
>> down
>> officially; nevertheless we do have a constitution.
>
> Thanks for answering Warp.
> AFAIK we don't have one document that is our constitution and things are
> complicated by England, Wales and NI using Common law whilst Scotland
> uses civil law.
Bloody Scotland making things complicated ;-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
