 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> constitutional rights than here. In the US the constitution is something
> officials *must* obey. Here the constitution is little more than just a
In theory.
--
DOS means never having to live hand-to-mouse
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:37:57 -0500, Warp wrote:
> In the US the constitution is something officials *must* obey.
Someone should tell the current government here that, because they seem
to think they're above the law - and that includes the constitution.
Jim
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?
>
> 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.
Well vote for someone else at the next election then. And if you say
"they'll all do the same" then start a new political party, which if your
thoughts are not in the minority, will do quite well I would expect.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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?
Welcome to the real world, where people always bend the rules, nothing is
black or white.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> Welcome to the real world, where people always bend the rules, nothing is
> black or white.
That doesn't mean we should simply accept this bending of rules quietly.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Welcome to the real world, where people always bend the rules, nothing is
>> black or white.
>
> That doesn't mean we should simply accept this bending of rules quietly.
Why not? Some idiot is deliberately trying to provoke the system and then
complains when his site gets blocked. I have no sympathy for him.
If he really wanted to expose the system he would choose a different name
for his website, and not link to the blocked sites directly. He has
deliberately done this knowing full well it is likely to get his site
blocked, so he can then go and complain about it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> >> Welcome to the real world, where people always bend the rules, nothing is
> >> black or white.
> >
> > That doesn't mean we should simply accept this bending of rules quietly.
> Why not? Some idiot is deliberately trying to provoke the system and then
> complains when his site gets blocked. I have no sympathy for him.
His site is being blocked *illegally*. Blocking it is against the law.
That's the point.
Besides, his site is not the only one which is being illegally censored.
It's just the most prominent example.
> If he really wanted to expose the system he would choose a different name
> for his website, and not link to the blocked sites directly. He has
> deliberately done this knowing full well it is likely to get his site
> blocked, so he can then go and complain about it.
Sometimes giving an actual example is more efficient than theoretizing
about what could perhaps happen.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Why not? Some idiot is deliberately trying to provoke the system and
>> then
>> complains when his site gets blocked. I have no sympathy for him.
>
> His site is being blocked *illegally*. Blocking it is against the law.
TO be honest, I don't think anyone is really going to listen to him or care,
given the name of his website.
> Besides, his site is not the only one which is being illegally censored.
> It's just the most prominent example.
Change your website name/content to some less illegal one and you won't get
blocked.
> Sometimes giving an actual example is more efficient than theoretizing
> about what could perhaps happen.
Of course, but his example doesn't really encourage people to protest, the
system seems to be working pretty well, I would think that most people would
expect a site with that name to be blocked. If someone totally unrelated
had been blocked, like say amazon.com or some general news website, then
that would have been a better example to use - but I doubt any sites like
that are actually blocked.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> Change your website name/content to some less illegal one and you won't get
> blocked.
"Childporn" is in no way or form an illegal name. There's absolutely no
legal nor logical reason to blacklist a site with that name. Censoring
the site is illegal.
> Of course, but his example doesn't really encourage people to protest, the
> system seems to be working pretty well, I would think that most people would
> expect a site with that name to be blocked.
Uh? It's a perfect example of how the system does *not* work well,
as legal sites are being wrongly blacklisted, which is illegal.
> If someone totally unrelated
> had been blocked, like say amazon.com or some general news website, then
> that would have been a better example to use - but I doubt any sites like
> that are actually blocked.
Apparently this site has also been blocked. It's anybody's guess why:
http://www.nn.iij4u.or.jp/~nekokubo/
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> "Childporn" is in no way or form an illegal name. There's absolutely no
> legal nor logical reason to blacklist a site with that name.
I know you are just pretending to be this dumb to carry on the argument with
me...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:46:14 +0100, "scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> "Childporn" is in no way or form an illegal name. There's absolutely no
>> legal nor logical reason to blacklist a site with that name.
>
>I know you are just pretending to be this dumb to carry on the argument with
>me...
>
I don't think he is. Warp has a valid point. Calling a site Childporn may be in
very bad taste and Not Too Bright but it is not illegal in itself. IMO and my
country (at this moment in time).
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> "Childporn" is in no way or form an illegal name. There's absolutely no
>>> legal nor logical reason to blacklist a site with that name.
>>
>>I know you are just pretending to be this dumb to carry on the argument
>>with
>>me...
>>
> I don't think he is. Warp has a valid point. Calling a site Childporn may
> be in
> very bad taste and Not Too Bright but it is not illegal in itself. IMO and
> my
> country (at this moment in time).
No he doesn't have a valid point, there is a totally logical reason why
childporn.info should be blocked. If you can't see why then I guess there's
no point in discussing it further.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>
> No he doesn't have a valid point, there is a totally logical reason why
> childporn.info should be blocked. If you can't see why then I guess
> there's no point in discussing it further.
>
There is also a totally logical reason to block several other sites
(piratebay for one good example). That good reason still *does not make
it legal*. Yes, we do have a law to allow ISP's to block foreign
childporn sites. And yes, the law is bent on two points (1 - the site
does not contain any of the forbidden material, 2 - the site is not
foreign). Yes, the author of the site is now forcing charges of being
helpful to illegal operation (no, I don't know the correct term in
English), but it doesn't give the police the permission to bend the law,
so basically it seems that both parties (the author and police) have
broken the law (different parts of it, though).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> >>I know you are just pretending to be this dumb to carry on the argument
> >>with me...
Now you are patrinizing me.
You are saying that that person gets no sympathy from you. You are totally
missing the point. The point is that the police and the service providers
are breaking the law by performing illegal censorship. It doesn't matter
who is the victim of this illegal censorship and what he has done. That's
not the point at all.
> > I don't think he is. Warp has a valid point. Calling a site Childporn may
> > be in
> > very bad taste and Not Too Bright but it is not illegal in itself. IMO and
> > my
> > country (at this moment in time).
> No he doesn't have a valid point, there is a totally logical reason why
> childporn.info should be blocked. If you can't see why then I guess there's
> no point in discussing it further.
The word "childporn" is not illegal. By blacklisting the site they are
saying that the site contains something illegal.
That's not logical. Given that the site is owned by a Finnish citizen
and is located in Finland, if it contained anything illegal wouldn't the
more logical step be to make him to shut down the site and press charges?
The police is completely entitled to do so *if the site is illegal*.
However, the police is not doing that. Why? Because the site is not
illegal. By not pressing charges nor demanding the closure of the site,
the police is effectively saying that the site is not illegal.
Thus blacklisting a legal site is not logical, rational and, most
importantly, it's against the law.
The police has no authority to blacklist a legal site. Service providers
have no authority to censor a legal site. Doing so is against the Finnish
constitution and other laws. Yet they are doing so with impunity.
So no, I can't see why there would be any logical reason to do so.
It's completely illogical and contradictory. (As I said, it's contradictory
because the proper step to handle an illegal website would be to press
charges, yet they are not doing so.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Eero Ahonen" <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> a écrit dans le message de
news: 47b5bd0e$1@news.povray.org...
> There is also a totally logical reason to block several other sites
> (piratebay for one good example). That good reason still *does not make
> it legal*. Yes, we do have a law to allow ISP's to block foreign
> childporn sites. And yes, the law is bent on two points (1 - the site
> does not contain any of the forbidden material, 2 - the site is not
> foreign).
I understand that he was providing a list of blocked sites (including
allegedly criminal sites). If that's true, he was actually 1) providing his
visitors with means to obtain such material and 2) actively helping said
sites to find customers. Isn't that enough to make the site illegal, or at
least blockable pending an investigation? If the accusation is true, this
has little to do with censorship and all with common sense.
For instance, would a site called "stolengoods.com" consisting in only links
to sellers of stolen merchandise be legal? Or a site called
"hire-a-hitman.com" consisting in a directory of professional contract
killers? IANAL, but countries have laws against aiding or abetting criminals
and criminal activity, and the way assistance is given may be irrelevant. I
don't know the details of the case, so I'm just asking.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:46:14 +0100, scott wrote:
>> "Childporn" is in no way or form an illegal name. There's absolutely
>> no
>> legal nor logical reason to blacklist a site with that name.
>
> I know you are just pretending to be this dumb to carry on the argument
> with me...
Hey, for all you know, it's a site for recovering victims.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
>
> I understand that he was providing a list of blocked sites (including
> allegedly criminal sites).
Yes. It didn't matter earlier, while he just had URL's listed (so you
could copy-paste them). When he added links to them, this happened. Note
that the law in touch says nothing for either one. That law *demands*
the site to contain childporn to get blocked.
> If that's true, he was actually 1) providing his
> visitors with means to obtain such material and 2) actively helping said
> sites to find customers.
Yes, but this also was the situation earlier.
> Isn't that enough to make the site illegal, or at
> least blockable pending an investigation? If the accusation is true, this
> has little to do with censorship and all with common sense.
No. It might make the site illegal (via other laws), but then the proper
way to handle the situation would be contacting the author and he's ISP,
as has been done earlier. Why the police didn't use the proper way I
don't know, but they should have.
Police also don't have permission to shoot bank robbers right away, even
if they are armed.
> For instance, would a site called "stolengoods.com" consisting in only links
> to sellers of stolen merchandise be legal?
Probably not, but it wouldn't make it a *foreing site containing
childporn*, as police was eMensioning that the blocked site did.
> Or a site called
> "hire-a-hitman.com" consisting in a directory of professional contract
> killers?
Again, there are proper ways to handle the situation. Lawful ways, which
should be used. The very guardians of the law should follow the law
themselves - at least to get some respect from the "normal people". If
they don't, they're showing a very bad example.
> IANAL, but countries have laws against aiding or abetting criminals
> and criminal activity, and the way assistance is given may be irrelevant. I
> don't know the details of the case, so I'm just asking.
Yep, we do also. As I wrote, "basically it seems that both parties (the
author and police) have broken the law (different parts of it, though)"
> G.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> The word "childporn" is not illegal. By blacklisting the site they are
> saying that the site contains something illegal.
Actually no - by blacklisting the site they are saying it contains very
particular illegal stuff - childporn itself. A Finnish quote straight
from the law:
Tässä laissa tarkoitetaan:
1) lapsipornosivustolla lasta esittävän sukupuolisiveellisyyttä
loukkaavan kuvan levittämistä internetin kautta; sekä
In English:
In this law we mean:
1) as childpornsite a site that shows a sexually insulting picture which
contains a child.
Well ok, showing can be img-tagged from another site, but linking a site
ain't showing an image.
> That's not logical. Given that the site is owned by a Finnish citizen
> and is located in Finland, if it contained anything illegal wouldn't the
> more logical step be to make him to shut down the site and press charges?
Yes, especially when our new childporn-law says that it's ment for
foreign sites:
Tämän lain tarkoituksena on lasten ja heidän perusoikeuksiensa
suojaamiseksi edistää toimenpiteitä, joiden avulla voidaan estää pääsy
ulkomailla ylläpidettäviin lapsipornosivustoihin.
In English:
This law is ment to protect childs and theier right with providing
possibilities to *stop connecting to foreign childpornsites*.
> illegal. By not pressing charges nor demanding the closure of the site,
> the police is effectively saying that the site is not illegal.
Actually they have now pressed charges. He's gonna be questioned
possible as soon as monday next week. But even while the author may have
broken the law (as assisting a crime), it doesn't give the police (or
the ISP for that matter) permission to block his site.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
>
> Actually no - by blacklisting the site they are saying it contains very
> particular illegal stuff - childporn itself. A Finnish quote straight
> from the law:
For the record, as sick as it sounds, the world is not black'n'white.
Those sick, pervert bastards will finds childs to see from somewhere -
and I'd feel more secure, if they were home alone, by the computer
instead of sneaking at playgrounds etc. No, I don't mean childporn
should be leagalized, but even less I want pedophiles near living children.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:47:43 +0200, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Eero Ahonen wrote:
>>
>> Actually no - by blacklisting the site they are saying it contains very
>> particular illegal stuff - childporn itself. A Finnish quote straight
>> from the law:
>
> For the record, as sick as it sounds, the world is not black'n'white.
> Those sick, pervert bastards will finds childs to see from somewhere -
> and I'd feel more secure, if they were home alone, by the computer
> instead of sneaking at playgrounds etc. No, I don't mean childporn
> should be leagalized, but even less I want pedophiles near living
> children.
Agreed, but at the same time, the production of child pornography
involves sexual abuse as well. Like you said the world isn't black and
white.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> Agreed, but at the same time, the production of child pornography
> involves sexual abuse as well. Like you said the world isn't black and
> white.
Yep. While the community is filtering the internet, it should make a
double-effort to protect the real life.
> Jim
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:55:27 +0200, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>> Agreed, but at the same time, the production of child pornography
>> involves sexual abuse as well. Like you said the world isn't black and
>> white.
>
> Yep. While the community is filtering the internet, it should make a
> double-effort to protect the real life.
100% agreed. One could argue that the content being available on the
'net might make it easier to catch the *real* criminals - and those
aren't the ones distributing the content, but those *creating* it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:20:58 +0100, "scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>
>No he doesn't have a valid point,
Oh! Yes he does.
> there is a totally logical reason why
>childporn.info should be blocked.
Yes I can see that but I don't agree with your logic.
> If you can't see why then I guess there's
>no point in discussing it further.
But you will though. See below.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > For the record, as sick as it sounds, the world is not black'n'white.
> > Those sick, pervert bastards will finds childs to see from somewhere -
> > and I'd feel more secure, if they were home alone, by the computer
> > instead of sneaking at playgrounds etc. No, I don't mean childporn
> > should be leagalized, but even less I want pedophiles near living
> > children.
> Agreed, but at the same time, the production of child pornography
> involves sexual abuse as well.
Except that nowadays CGI can be used to produce almost anything that
doesn't involve real people. Even that is illegal in most countries,
though.
Some people have argued that, even though a disgustingly sick form
of CGI, it could prevent some sick people from committing actual crimes
by giving them an outlet. However, even simulated childporn is illegal
to produce and to own in most countries, with severe penalties. This
may be too discouraging for many of these people, who don't dare to take
the risk. Then, when they have no outlet for their sickness, and it
stresses them long enough...
(Of course the best thing they should do is to seek help for their
problem, but the current society makes sure that they won't. If their
problem leaks out, the witch-hunt will never stop for the rest of their
lives. That probably discourages most.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 05:19:11 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > For the record, as sick as it sounds, the world is not black'n'white.
>> > Those sick, pervert bastards will finds childs to see from somewhere
>> > - and I'd feel more secure, if they were home alone, by the computer
>> > instead of sneaking at playgrounds etc. No, I don't mean childporn
>> > should be leagalized, but even less I want pedophiles near living
>> > children.
>
>> Agreed, but at the same time, the production of child pornography
>> involves sexual abuse as well.
>
> Except that nowadays CGI can be used to produce almost anything that
> doesn't involve real people. Even that is illegal in most countries,
> though.
True, but at the same time, it's still fairly easy to spot CG vs. real.
I've yet to see human CG effects that I looked at and went "is that real,
or is it CG?".
> Some people have argued that, even though a disgustingly sick form
> of CGI, it could prevent some sick people from committing actual crimes
> by giving them an outlet. However, even simulated childporn is illegal
> to produce and to own in most countries, with severe penalties. This may
> be too discouraging for many of these people, who don't dare to take the
> risk. Then, when they have no outlet for their sickness, and it stresses
> them long enough...
I can't argue that.
> (Of course the best thing they should do is to seek help for their
> problem, but the current society makes sure that they won't. If their
> problem leaks out, the witch-hunt will never stop for the rest of their
> lives. That probably discourages most.)
I also can't argue with that. There are definitely people who need help,
and many who would probably seek help if there wasn't such a stigma
associated with their disorder.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:20:58 +0100, scott wrote:
> No he doesn't have a valid point, there is a totally logical reason why
> childporn.info should be blocked.
Yes, actually, he does. The site name is not and should not be the
reason for blocking it - the content should be.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>> Agreed, but at the same time, the production of child pornography
>> involves sexual abuse as well.
>
> Except that nowadays CGI can be used to produce almost anything that
> doesn't involve real people. Even that is illegal in most countries,
> though.
Even softcore nudity of real minors is classed under CP, which afaik
isn't necessarily sexual abuse. The argument is something along the
lines of "creepy pedo will masturbate to this image at some point, that
is sexual abuse"...even if the model never even knows the pedo in
question exists, let alone meets. It's pretty bizarre, imo.
As far as the argument of money/whatever payment being coercion so it's
all abuse even if all that happens is photography...how is it any
different for "adults" who do the same thing? It's not even a matter of
maturity, since all the twenty-somethings *I* know are still in the
'woohoo, I'mma kid out from under the thumbs of my parents!" phase.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> If someone totally unrelated
> had been blocked, like say amazon.com or some general news website, then
> that would have been a better example to use - but I doubt any sites like
> that are actually blocked.
Here's another criticism of the censorship, with good examples of
censored sites which have absolutely nothing to with porn and have
absolutely nothing illegal. How these sites have ended up into the
censorship list is a complete mystery.
http://www.effi.org/blog/kai-2008-02-18.html
May I again remind that censoring completely legal information is
illegal in Finland, yet they are doing it with impunity.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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.
Supposedly. The most recent president has made a mess of that, simply
ignoring the constitution, and then ignoring the legislative branch
telling him not to ignore the constitution.
About the only "teeth" in the laws are when (for example) the police
arrest someone, break the rules, and the court says that the evidence
the police gathered illegally can't be used in the court case.
> Here the constitution is little more than just a
> set of suggested recommendations.
Oddly, our president has said pretty much that.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Why not? Some idiot is deliberately trying to provoke the system and
> then complains when his site gets blocked. I have no sympathy for him.
In the USA, we call that "civil disobedience."
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> helpful to illegal operation (no, I don't know the correct term in
"Accessory to crime"
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> However, even simulated childporn is illegal
> to produce and to own in most countries, with severe penalties.
There have even been cases in the USA where someone writing fantasy
stories in his personal diary about child porn gets arrested and jailed
for it.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > 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.
> Supposedly. The most recent president has made a mess of that, simply
> ignoring the constitution, and then ignoring the legislative branch
> telling him not to ignore the constitution.
OTOH, I assume that the US government does not impose the 25th,
section 4 very lightly.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> There have even been cases in the USA where someone writing fantasy
> stories in his personal diary about child porn gets arrested and jailed
> for it.
IMO that's more a case of "that's just sick, he should be punished"
instead of having a logical legal meaning.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> OTOH, I assume that the US government does not impose the 25th,
> section 4 very lightly.
Assuming you mean Ammendment 25, it happens fairly often. If the
president dies, or goes in the hospital, or something like that, this
part kicks in. At least, that's my understanding.
It's rare that it is imposed based on the sanity of the president.
There's the "impeachment" process for that.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > OTOH, I assume that the US government does not impose the 25th,
> > section 4 very lightly.
> Assuming you mean Ammendment 25, it happens fairly often. If the
> president dies, or goes in the hospital, or something like that, this
> part kicks in. At least, that's my understanding.
25th amendment, *section 4*. That's the one where the president is
removed from office by force, without his own consent.
Has that ever happened in the history of the USA? (OTOH, the 25th
was introduced in the 60's or something, so there hasn't been all that
much history in the first place...)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:49:23 -0500, Warp wrote:
> OTOH, I assume that the US government does not impose the 25th,
> section 4 very lightly.
Not as lightly as in 24, certainly. ;-)
Personally, I'd like to see us implement it against the current president
(and his VP) on the grounds of mental incompetence. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> OTOH, I assume that the US government does not impose the 25th,
>>> section 4 very lightly.
>
>> Assuming you mean Ammendment 25, it happens fairly often. If the
>> president dies, or goes in the hospital, or something like that, this
>> part kicks in. At least, that's my understanding.
>
> 25th amendment, *section 4*. That's the one where the president is
> removed from office by force, without his own consent.
Yes. And the president can't give consent if he's in the middle of
having a heart attack, or he has gotten into an accident and is
unconcious, etc.
> Has that ever happened in the history of the USA? (OTOH, the 25th
> was introduced in the 60's or something, so there hasn't been all that
> much history in the first place...)
There have been two impeachments (which is like being arrested at a
trial) - Bill Clinton (for lying about Monica Lewinski) and um Andrew
Jackson? Someone like President #5 or so, IIRC.
As far as I remember, we've never actually had to go so far as to kick a
president out of office. Most resign before they're even impeached, for
those who know they've done something seriously wrong. See Richard
Nixon, Watergate Scandal, etc.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> There have even been cases in the USA where someone writing fantasy
>> stories in his personal diary about child porn gets arrested and jailed
>> for it.
>
> IMO that's more a case of "that's just sick, he should be punished"
> instead of having a logical legal meaning.
Actually, IIRC, he had already been arrested for actually owning child
porn once, and he wasn't allowed to own it again, or something.
Certainly the "it harms the children" doesn't apply in that case.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Seems that some people in Thailand have noticed the Finnish police
censoring the memorial page of a late Thai princess (age 84 in the
website photograph) as child porn. In Thailand, committing an act of
perjury towards a member of the royalty is punishable by 15 years of
imprisonment.
http://facthai.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/finland-labels-princess-galyani-portrait-kiddie-porn-effi/
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
