|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: RykRyk Date: Aug 16, 2007 02:05
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:25:34 +0000 (UTC), in message
blue.rahul.net>
spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>Ryk wellingtonhouse.org> wrote:
>>
>>>My statement quoted above said nothing about one way or the
>>>other about the U.S. You're
>>>trying to divert from my observation about the dangerousness
>>>of your expressed point of view to individual freedoms.
>
>>I'm not convinced of that danger. What evidence do you have that there
>>has been less suppression of legitimate dissent in the US over the
>>years than in other developed democracies that impose limits on such
>>things as hate speech?
>
>I have not claimed this. You are trying to divert away from
>my statements in the same manner as Ruth has.
|
| Show full article (1.08Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Steve PopeSteve Pope Date: Aug 16, 2007 02:19
Ryk wellingtonhouse.org> wrote:
>>Ryk wellingtonhouse.org> wrote:>>>>My statement quoted above said nothing about one way or the
>>>>other about the U.S. You're
>>>>trying to divert from my observation about the dangerousness
>>>>of your expressed point of view to individual freedoms.
>>>I'm not convinced of that danger. What evidence do you have that there
>>>has been less suppression of legitimate dissent in the US over the
>>>years than in other developed democracies that impose limits on such
>>>things as hate speech?
>>I have not claimed this. You are trying to divert away from
>>my statements in the same manner as Ruth has.
>I see your point, although it seems tautological. Any restriction on
>speech does limit individual freedom. Danger might not be the best
>word to get your point across as it implies some sort of risky,
>uncertain situation, rather than the clear imposition of limits on
>individual freedoms.
|
| Show full article (2.08Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: RykRyk Date: Aug 16, 2007 02:26
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:54:57 +0000 (UTC), in message
blue.rahul.net>
spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>David Weinshenker earthlink.net> wrote:>>That's probably a big difference right there: in many cases in the US,
>>prosecutors -are- elected officials who feel pressure to "show results".
>
>I will note however that the Canadian "exclusionary clause", mentioned
>earlier by Ryk, serves something of the same purpose as does the
>practice of electing and potentially recalling judges and prosecutors
>in the U.S. -- it dilutes the power that would be held by an
>independent judiciary.
>
>Both practices are reactions against the spectre of an activist
>judicial branch.
|
| Show full article (1.27Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Steve PopeSteve Pope Date: Aug 16, 2007 02:49
Ryk wellingtonhouse.org> wrote:
> Steve Pope wrote,
>>Both practices are reactions against the spectre of an activist
>>judicial branch.
>
>Actually Steve, that's the "notwithstanding clause".
Sorry, my error.
> It may be instructional to note that while US politicians
> were throwing around the idea of constitutional amendments to
> prevent gay marriage, the Conservative federal government in
> Canada was not willing to invoke the notwithstanding clause to
> get their way and prevent gay marriages.
Have not Canadian conservatives "thrown around the idea" of
using the notwithstanding clause for this purpose?
Steve
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: LaneLane Date: Aug 16, 2007 06:37
> My choice of term "danger" alludes to a scenario where laws
> are on the books that could be very interpreted overly-broadly by
> courts, making normal non-violent speech illegal if it is too
> political or too angry. There are certainly laws in the U.S. I
> consider dangerous in this sense.
Laws? We don't need laws for this anymore with this president who
feels empowered to declare anyone he chooses an enemy combatant and
throw him in jail indefinitely without judicial recourse.
Laws? Those are for democracies.
Lane
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Steve PopeSteve Pope Date: Aug 16, 2007 06:49
>> My choice of term "danger" alludes to a scenario where laws
>> are on the books that could be very interpreted overly-broadly by
>> courts, making normal non-violent speech illegal if it is too
>> political or too angry. There are certainly laws in the U.S. I
>> consider dangerous in this sense.
>Laws? We don't need laws for this anymore with this president who
>feels empowered to declare anyone he chooses an enemy combatant and
>throw him in jail indefinitely without judicial recourse.
>Laws? Those are for democracies.
You're right, of course. I was limiting my consideration of
dangerousness to the present discussion of laws, but by no means
is that a realistic limit.
Steve
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: SelkiSelki Date: Aug 16, 2007 21:28
>> My choice of term "danger" alludes to a scenario where laws
>> are on the books that could be very interpreted overly-broadly by
>> courts, making normal non-violent speech illegal if it is too
>> political or too angry. There are certainly laws in the U.S. I
>> consider dangerous in this sense.
> Laws? We don't need laws for this anymore with this president who
> feels empowered to declare anyone he chooses an enemy combatant and
> throw him in jail indefinitely without judicial recourse.
I think an overzealous prosecutor could call this "willful promotion of
hate" and prosecute over it. And in some climates/circumstances, s/he
might get a jury to convict. That, and selective enforcement, are what I
see as the danger of overly broad restrictions on speech.
Selki
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Steve PopeSteve Pope Date: Aug 17, 2007 00:28
John Palmer ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>My main point was that I don't think Fred Phelps' activities are
>protected by the First Amendment... they're a kind of unpleasant (but
>essentially necessary) side effect of the First Amendment, akin to the
>example I gave: mob lawyers being able to relay orders due to
>attorney-client privilege. I don't think you can create a meaningful
>and enforceable ban without breaking something else that's more
>important.
Your theory, then, is that Phelps-type protest is not protected
speech in the U.S., but that proving it is illegal is impossible.
I think you're mistaken. I think it is protected speech.
I can't think of any category of banned speech that includes what
Phelps is doing; nor can I think of any speech that resembles
Phelps, but was nonetheless banned and with that ban being sustained.
Steve
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: John PalmerJohn Palmer Date: Aug 17, 2007 02:19
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:28:39 +0000 (UTC), spope33@ speedymail.org
(Steve Pope) wrote:
>John Palmer ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>My main point was that I don't think Fred Phelps' activities are
>>protected by the First Amendment... they're a kind of unpleasant (but
>>essentially...
|
| Show full article (1.68Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
