 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:45:36 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote:
> Actually a few years back there was a huge controversy in Sweden
> because
> a priest preached against homosexuality (nothing unusual in Christian
> churches) and got sued because of that.
>
> (Damn, I don't remember now if he was finally acquitted or convicted.)
Acquitted. He was not sued though; he was tried on criminal charges.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> Acquitted. He was not sued though; he was tried on criminal charges.
I'm not acquainted with the legal terminology. What's the difference?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> "Normal" people understand that displaying Nazi symbols in a text book
> about the history or WWII isn't advocating Nazism, but the book got
> banned in Germany for displaying Nazi symbols anyway.
Is Germany going down the path of history censorship?
Isn't that a bit the same the nazis themselves practiced?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
>> Acquitted. He was not sued though; he was tried on criminal charges.
>
> I'm not acquainted with the legal terminology. What's the difference?
Criminal charges is when the government tries to put you in jail for
something. A lawsuit is when a private individual tries to get you to
give them money for something.
If you're in a car accident, you might get a lawsuit from the other
person who wants you to pay their medical bills.
If you intentionally try to run someone down, you'll get criminal
charges of attempted murder or some such, and it'll be the government
(and not the person you tried to run down) that will be giving you trouble.
Lawsuits fall into "contract law" and "torts." Contract law comes up
when you break an agreement with some other party. "Torts" are when you
don't have a prior agreement. So "contract law" covers things like (say)
warranties and buying something that never gets delivered and stuff like
that. A "tort" would be someone at the store leaving a broom across the
stairs that you trip over and hurt yourself, or spilling hot McD's
coffee in your lap.
In the USA, there are different legal standards, since the government is
presumed to have so much more money and power than an individual. A
lawsuit between private individuals can't lead to jail time, so whoever
provides a "preponderance of evidence", which is to say a bit more than
50%, wins. For something with jail time, you need "beyond a reasonable
doubt", i.e., no reasonable person could doubt that you're guilty.
And then you have "felony" and "misdemeanor", the first of which is
possible jail time more than a year, the latter of which is jail time
necessarily less than a year. (Like, say, murder verses vandalism.)
I'm not a lawyer, I know virtually nothing about law outside the USA,
and none of this likely applies to you. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> "Normal" people understand that displaying Nazi symbols in a text book
>> about the history or WWII isn't advocating Nazism, but the book got
>> banned in Germany for displaying Nazi symbols anyway.
>
> Is Germany going down the path of history censorship?
I think it was just a bit of over-zealousness. They weren't trying to
censor history. They just wound up censoring history books (or was it
Wikipedia?) because the law was you couldn't display Nazi symbols in
public or some such, without any exception for educational purposes.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I think it was just a bit of over-zealousness. They weren't trying to
> censor history. They just wound up censoring history books (or was it
> Wikipedia?) because the law was you couldn't display Nazi symbols in
> public or some such, without any exception for educational purposes.
I have always wondered what's the *purpose* of that law, the *goal* it's
trying to achieve.
Is it yet another victimless crime?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I have always wondered what's the *purpose* of that law, the *goal* it's
> trying to achieve.
I think the idea is to have an excuse to arrest people who are actually
advocating a return of Nazism. Same as the law against holocaust denial,
really.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Worse, of course, is that it's only the popular things you can't speak
> out against. Nobody gets in trouble for bashing gays or pagans. Hell, we
> passed a constitutional amendment specifically to harm gays.
>
Interesting read, this is the "anti-Catholic League"'s (well sort of),
view "of" the Catholic League:
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/pubs/documents/CatholicLeague.pdf
I love where it states that if you divided the "entire" money taken in
by the League the prior year by the $30 fee to be a member, you get
83,000 people, total, but dear old Bill claims they have 350,000
members. Then again, he also has "said" that he counts anyone that isn't
a "member", and gives him money as 1/2 a member, so.. without clear
numbers its hard to say. It could be him and the board, a few fruit
cakes, lets say.. 20 people at $30 a head = $600 + 700,000 people, who
sent him... $3.56 each? lol
Nah. What "is" true about the US is that the press will jump at anything
a loud mouth idiot says, **never** check any of their facts, and as a
result, people like Donahue have figured out that being loud, even
before you know what the hell you are protesting, through the right
"press sources", often enough, and re-expressed persistently enough, and
any paranoid idiocy will be lapped up by the press, paraded around as an
example of what "most members of group X believe", even if that is a
complete lie, and major corporations, businesses, government agencies,
and public organizations, will cave, rather than even try to fight back.
This is the "true" power of the religious right and the conservative
movement. Whining about imaginary "persecution" of their views, and
their "common cause" with other "religious" people, loudly, often,
constantly, and dishonestly, like some yapping poodle, stuck in an air
vent, so that **everyone** imagines is a huge pack of ravenous dogs at
there heals, not something with an inferiority complex, that does
nothing but bark, and you could kick out of the way like a football,
should it ever climb out of the vent long enough for you to figure it out.
And "everyone" is so bamboozled by these yapping idiots, they even have
otherwise "sane" people like my own parents, who given the shit they
went through and grew up *with*, should know better, parroting the,
"America is going to hell and losing its moral compass", BS.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I have always wondered what's the *purpose* of that law, the *goal* it's
> trying to achieve.
Aaaaand, welcome to the UK!
http://gnuru.org/article/1400/uk-government-ban-content-it-doesn-t-like
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, if you lie about someone in a way that damages their reputation,
> yes. But that's not we're talking about. Certainly newspaper editors can
> (for example)
>
> In theory, you're allowed to say anything that's true. "It's my opinion
> that ..." is true, since you've stated it as your opinion.
The problem comes when you say something that is your opinion/stance, and it
harms someone else enough to warrant action. It's perfectly possible to
seriously damage a person, company or group of peoples reputation by just
stating your opinion, especially if you are usually a trusted or well-read
source of information.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
