Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Matrixx8 said:Nice try, but there's a piece of the free-speech puzzle missing in the article you quote -- and in your comment on the article.
I seriously doubt that free speech is any less evident in Europe (at least in "Old Europe") than it is anywhere else in the world. For example, as an American living in the Netherlands, I can assure you that in many ways Dutch residents have much more freedom of speech than do American residents.
Why do you suppose that Theo van Gogh was murdered or Hirshi Ali received death threats? It is because they chose to use their right of free speech to insult and debase an entire culture, rather than individuals within that culture who believe in medieval magic and supernatural interventions.
Dutch television does not censor nudity or vulgar language. Nor is it legal for companies who have advertising contracts to put pressure on TV broadcasters to cancel programs because they do not like the content (something that happens everyday in the USA).
Is this situation different in other European countries? Some, like Germany and Austria, have hate-speech legislation that bans calls for the extermination of Jews or Muslims. Aren't death threats banned in the U.S.?
The U.S. is certainly no exception to the censorship rule -- not in its long history and despite the First Amendment.
The historical examples read like a hit list of free speech issues -- from the Alien and Sedition Acts to suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, from the Espionage Act of 1917 to the Smith Act during the Second World War and the House UnAmerican Activities Committee in the 1950s.
More recently, the Bush Administration has tried to revive a law that went into effect under the Clinton Administration:
Besides this, there are many other free speech issues in the U.S., including patent laws, campus codes and free speech in the workplace (protecting employees' rights to criticize their bosses or their companies without being fired).
So, while every country has its up and downside, the U.S. is certainly no better off than any other constitutional democracy when it comes to free speech.
But, hey, I agree with your take on the issue.
Not sure what your point is, Archangel. I was responding to another poster who implied that there was no free speech in Europe. My point was that every Democratic country, including the USA, infringes on free speech.archangel said:Right...and I am supposed to believe this?..Gimme a break...I for one... must see the facts before I can answer this BS! What is wrong with America?
Simple... we are open and honest....and this seems to be the problem....as most are deceivers...NO?
Excellent link.Diuretic said:This might not be helpful but I'll put it anyway. In the US it's accepted that free speech is a natural right by virtue of someone's being a free human being. Of course there are limits, free speech is not an absolute, but those restrictions are purposeful and imposed by law not by government fiat. Now, the First Amendment is all about limiting the government's ability to restrict free speech, it doesn't afford a right, that right was already there. In some jusrisdictions (eg mine) there is only an implied right of free speech (according to the High Court of Australia in Langer - discussed here http://www.international.activism.uts.edu.au/conferences/civildis/gelber.html).
The issue of free speech isn't clear cut anywhere.
Matrixx8 said:Excellent link.
I wonder what the legal implications are of Australia's having adopted the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How does the Australian Constitution treat such treaties?
The U.S. Constitution states that all treaties entered into become the law of the land -- although, concerning the obligations under the UN Charter to which the U.S. is a signatory, some Americans seem to have forgotten this quaint legal requirement.
Matrixx8 said:Excellent link.
I wonder what the legal implications are of Australia's having adopted the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How does the Australian Constitution treat such treaties?
The U.S. Constitution states that all treaties entered into become the law of the land -- although, concerning the obligations under the UN Charter to which the U.S. is a signatory, some Americans seem to have forgotten this quaint legal requirement.
"...Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The section of the constitution you quoted merely states that the president has the power to conclude treaties, not break them.Kathianne said:No it doesn't.
Whatever the President and Senate can do, they can undo. Such is the way of our Constititution. Commonsense says you don't renege too often, or no one will honor treaties.
However, no where close to 'the law of the land' which is the Constititution.
As you know, a resolution to amend the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or of the legislators of two-thirds of the states, followed by ratification of three-fourths of the states....This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Matrixx8 said:The section of the constitution you quoted merely states that the president has the power to conclude treaties, not break them.
Article VI states:
As you know, a resolution to amend the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or of the legislators of two-thirds of the states, followed by ratification of three-fourths of the states.
It's not a simple process.
The government has the power to withdraw from treaties. In the case of the U.N. Charter, however, we have not done that.
Concerning the invasion of Iraq, the question of whether the Congressional authorization to use military force was predicated on the principle of self-defense, as required by our treaty commitment to the U.N. Charter, is debatable.
In any case, U.S. treaty commitments remain "the supreme law of the land".
Matrixx8 said:Excellent link.
I wonder what the legal implications are of Australia's having adopted the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How does the Australian Constitution treat such treaties?
The U.S. Constitution states that all treaties entered into become the law of the land -- although, concerning the obligations under the UN Charter to which the U.S. is a signatory, some Americans seem to have forgotten this quaint legal requirement.
Your words, not mine.Kathianne said:You got me. You're correct. We should withdraw from the UN.
Funny thing, I was more thinking of some weapons treaties, not so much UN. Really, we didn't breach them, regarding Iraq, do a search. On the other hand, we still should leave the UN, it is utteraly non-relevant to reality.Matrixx8 said:Your words, not mine.
You seem to suggest that there is only one side to this question -- yours! I don't think it's quite that simple.Kathianne said:Funny thing, I was more thinking of some weapons treaties, not so much UN. Really, we didn't breach them, regarding Iraq, do a search. On the other hand, we still should leave the UN, it is utteraly non-relevant to reality.
There are many good legal links in this article.Experts disagree as to whether the war was legal under international law. Under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, to which the United States is a party, a nation's use of force is authorized under only two circumstances: in individual or collective self-defense, as outlined in Article 51, or pursuant to a Security Council resolution, as outlined in Article 42.
Matrixx8 said:You seem to suggest that there is only one side to this question -- yours! I don't think it's quite that simple.
There are many good legal links in this article.
As for the UN, if you look at the most recent vote on changing the UN Human Rights Commission, only three of the 180-some nations of the world voted against it -- the USA, Israel and two tiny islands in the Pacific.
The rest of the world seems pretty convinced that the UN is the best hope for peace. I doubt that you would find anything close to a majority of Americans -- even in the Republican Party -- who share your views on this.
It is no secret that, under this administration, American has lost a certain amount of credibility and respect around the world, compared to the Clinton and Bush I administrations. America is not an island. It needs the support and backing of democratic nations around the world, particularly in the face of localized and international terrorist cells.
In my view, your "stop the world, I want to get off" approach is not a formula for success.
Whoa. If I made some factual errors, please point them out.Kathianne said:Considering how you 'twisted' what I posted, many would assume I'd ding you, I did not. I am assuming you are looking for debate, thus I'll hold off hitting you for being wrong.
I never suggested that I or GW or the West held all the cards. I think the holes in NYC, Pentagon, PA, show differently, asshat, respectively that is meant.
Do you think there is any 'meeting ground', personally I don't. What's your take?
I don't blame you.Kathianne said:matrixx, I'm not going further down this convoluted road of yours. (emphasis added)
I take your point. But, remember, you took us down that "road" with your two provocative statements. I merely replied to them.Kathianne said:My take on all of these is easily accessible by a site search. ... do that, then I'll be happy to 'debate' you.
