I thought this was interesting

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/7373639.stm
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> I thought this was interesting
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/7373639.stm

Hehe, I think the interesting part is whether his blog posting amounts to a 
threat in the eyes of the law or not.  If it does, then no "freedom of 
speech" card can get you off, that's irrelevant.  Without seeing the whole 
posting it's impossible to tell just from that one line quoted whether it is 
a threat or not.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:04:40 +0200, "scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:

>> I thought this was interesting
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/7373639.stm
>
>Hehe, I think the interesting part is whether his blog posting amounts to a 
>threat in the eyes of the law or not.  If it does, then no "freedom of 
>speech" card can get you off, that's irrelevant.  Without seeing the whole 
>posting it's impossible to tell just from that one line quoted whether it is 
>a threat or not.
> 

I agree, It is good to see that RL can apply to this world too :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Hehe, I think the interesting part is whether his blog posting amounts to a 
> threat in the eyes of the law or not.  If it does, then no "freedom of 
> speech" card can get you off, that's irrelevant.

  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"?

  And don't answer with the bullcrap about the difference being that the
punishment cannot be applied arbitrarily in democratic countries, because
that's not true. It has been seen countless times how they arbitrarily
punish people for having the wrong opinion. They will always find some
law which they can use as an excuse. The law book is very thick.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  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.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> In free countries you get *very* specific laws about exactly what is illegal 
> to say/write when and where.

  Which, at the same time, are so vague and generic that they can be used
for almost anything.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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

>> In free countries you get *very* specific laws about exactly what is 
>> illegal
>> to say/write when and where.
>
>  Which, at the same time, are so vague and generic that they can be used
> for almost anything.

IANAL, but the laws I know seem very precise and specific, and no way can 
they be applied to things like criticising the government in general.  Do 
you know any different?

For example, to be prosecuted for some sort of defamation, it must be proved 
that what you wrote/said is false, which of course is impossible if what you 
have said is your opinion (eg "I think everyone in government should resign 
because they are really bad at their jobs").  In some non-free country 
though, you would be punished for saying that.

Again, to be prosecuted for perjury, it must be proved that what you have 
said is false, and it only applies in very certain official situations (eg 
in a court).  There is no way this law can be so "vague and generic" that 
you could use it to punish someone outside of these situations.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> IANAL, but the laws I know seem very precise and specific, and no way can 
> they be applied to things like criticising the government in general.  Do 
> you know any different?

  For example in Finland there's a law about incitement against certain
groups of people (such as ethnic groups).

  What the letter of the law means is that it's illegal to incite people
to commit crimes against people based, for example, on their ethnicity
or nationality.

  In practice, however, this is an "umbrella law" which can and *is* used
to sue anyone who offends, and sometimes even criticizes certain religious
or ethnic groups, even when there's no incitement. The law is stretched to
conventiently cover these cases too.

  This is applied rather hypocritically here too. For example extremely
and outrageously offensive public displays of Jesus go completely
unpunished, but even mild parodies of Mohammed can cause and have caused
police investigations.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  What the letter of the law means is that it's illegal to incite people
> to commit crimes against people based, for example, on their ethnicity
> or nationality.

Why just on ethnicity or nationality, why is it not just illegal to incite 
people to commit crimes against anyone or group?  IMO law should not get 
mixed up with ethnicity, nationality and religion, the laws should be equal 
for and against everyone.

>  In practice, however, this is an "umbrella law" which can and *is* used
> to sue anyone who offends, and sometimes even criticizes certain religious
> or ethnic groups, even when there's no incitement. The law is stretched to
> conventiently cover these cases too.

Well then I guess it's a problem with the wording of the law, or the justice 
system in Finland, if such a specific law can be "bent" to be used for cases 
which clearly have no incitement.  If you had a jury system, then maybe they 
would prevent such stupid applications of the law ;-)

Post a reply to this message