Canada has constitutionalized rights in the form of the charter of rights and freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Except Canada's guarantees, like France's guarantees, aren't a blanket "you can say anything in public, regardless of how inflammatory it is". That's what I'm getting at.
EDIT of the EDIT : oh god, I deleted everything.
Hem, rewind : "Okay, your position is clearer now. Absolutes are dangerous things, subject to abuse.
No liberty for liberty's enemies (St Just) is a thought provoking maxim, that I gladly dedicate to our goblin comrade.
EDIT : that said, OWS would be perfectly legit in France.
Yeah, St. Just was pretty cool.
EDIT: [facepalm]
Vive le Galt!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still waiting for the evidence I'm wrong so you can prove it to me. Give me a situation where OWS is causing the blockage of roads like you've been harping on. And show me how it is different from any other demonstration.Wasn't this a situation that arose pretty early on?
According to what I've read, including the video that Citizen Pres Man has linked, it was the cops that blocked the bridge in order to arrest the protestors.
@Citizen A.P.P.L.E.--
Without commenting on the moderator's decision to delete your post, just wanted to say that: a) I had nothing to do with the decision; and b) I thought your comment was funny.
What does France's "freedom of speech" say about political campaigning and campaign financing?
One of the biggest issues with the US's absolutist approach to free speech is the inability to have any reasonable limitations on campaign financing and 3rd party ads. The Citizen's United decision removed most of the remaining barriers.
For twenty years now, campaign financing has been regulated by the government.
There is an upper limit on every contender budget. They get reimbursed afterwards provided that the "Cour constitutionnelle" (our SCOTUS) validates their campaign accounts; fringe contenders falling below the 5% mark get less money back, to discourage opportunistic candidates.
Their financing comes from a straight loan (for mainstream candidates), or from campaign contributions (with an upper limit per physical person and per year; corporations aren't allowed to contribute at all since 1995, but other political parties can). It's not perfect, still subject to abuse, but the holes have been slowly plugged with additional laws.
Political TV ads are simply forbidden. Speaking time on TV (during news, political shows, etc.) is strictly regulated to promote equality between the candidates. Still not perfect, as our president will re-run but hasn't yet announced it, and so can use every occasion to belittle his political opponents without being contradicted.
That's not what I see in the video. What I see is a bunch of people jamming up the bridge.
This goes right back to the question I asked TOZ earlier and which he keeps dodging answering. What will he take as evidence?
[Waiting the half hour or so it will take for this stupid video to download in its entirety on my antiquated computer.]
@Citizen A.P.P.L.E.--
Without commenting on the moderator's decision to delete your post, just wanted to say that: a) I had nothing to do with the decision; and b) I thought your comment was funny.
I was just mad about the youth comment and wanted to shoot back.
I was just mad about the youth comment and wanted to shoot back.@Citizen A.P.P.L.E.--
Without commenting on the moderator's decision to delete your post, just wanted to say that: a) I had nothing to do with the decision; and b) I thought your comment was funny.
Hee hee!
Successful troll is successful!
Anyway, it was a cheap shot, but it was the only explanation I could come up with to explain your statement "The civil rights movement was illegal..." It engaged in civil disobedience a lot, but I don't think there was anything explicitly illegal--even back then--about, say, voter registration drives or marches.
I was just mad about the youth comment and wanted to shoot back.@Citizen A.P.P.L.E.--
Without commenting on the moderator's decision to delete your post, just wanted to say that: a) I had nothing to do with the decision; and b) I thought your comment was funny.
Hee hee!
Successful troll is successful!
Anyway, it was a cheap shot, but it was the only explanation I could come up with to explain your statement "The civil rights movement was illegal..." It engaged in civil disobedience a lot, but I don't think there was anything explicitly illegal--even back then--about, say, voter registration drives or marches.
You have a point there.
That's a very dangerous maxim because everyone thinks they are on the side of liberty - even two people who disagree with each other.
That maxim basically means "no liberty for anyone who disagrees with me".
Yes and no, that's why it a thought provoking one.
Your interpretion is one of the many possible, and quite close to the meaning of St Just. It also can mean that you don't have to lend your ennemies a rope to strangle you just because of your own principles.
In other words, that a rule is only good as long as it fulfills its purpose.
In this instance, freedom of speech is meant to promote a free and open society, but CAN be used to promote fascist ideas antithetic to such a society.
You have a point there.
Sweet.
Now, all I have to do is reach reconciliation with Citizen Duck and we can all unite against our true oppressors--the Paizoboard moderators!
Removed a post. "I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are developmentally disabled" is clearly over the line.
To be fair, he is a goblin.
So Freedom of Speech shouldn't apply to corporations.
Which means there would be no freedom of speech when it comes to publishing a book, airing a documentary, or pretty much any other form of mass communication. The government could censor it all.And still allow rich individuals to do the same abuses that big money does now.
Is freedom of speech applied as zealously to corporations than to physical people, already?
Is some brand of soda allowed to claim that it can cure cancer, for instance?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, he is a goblin.
Flamewar back on, you anti-goblin bigot!
|
Except Canada's guarantees, like France's guarantees, aren't a blanket "you can say anything in public, regardless of how inflammatory it is". That's what I'm getting at.Canada has constitutionalized rights in the form of the charter of rights and freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Do you have an example of this difference - a case to cite perhaps?
Flamewar back on, you anti-goblin bigot!To be fair, he is a goblin.
That was a joke.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not what I see in the video. What I see is a bunch of people jamming up the bridge.[Waiting the half hour or so it will take for this stupid video to download in its entirety on my antiquated computer.]
It's impossible to say from this video since it starts in media res.
I wasn't there, so I can't say.
Except Canada's guarantees, like France's guarantees, aren't a blanket "you can say anything in public, regardless of how inflammatory it is". That's what I'm getting at.Canada has constitutionalized rights in the form of the charter of rights and freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.Do you have an example of this difference - a case to cite perhaps?
An overview of free speech in Canada. It states in the introduction that it is generally accepted that some restrictions are necessary. You just don't get that sort of sensibleness in America when it comes to free speech.
That was a joke.Flamewar back on, you anti-goblin bigot!To be fair, he is a goblin.
So was mine.
For twenty years now, campaign financing has been regulated by the government.There is an upper limit on every contender budget. They get reimbursed afterwards provided that the "Cour constitutionnelle" (our SCOTUS) validates their campaign accounts; fringe contenders falling below the 5% mark get less money back, to discourage opportunistic candidates.
Their financing comes from a straight loan (for mainstream candidates), or from campaign contributions (with an upper limit per physical person and per year; corporations aren't allowed to contribute at all since 1995, but other political parties can). It's not perfect, still subject to abuse, but the holes have been slowly plugged with additional laws.
Political TV ads are simply forbidden. Speaking time on TV (during news, political shows, etc.) is strictly regulated to promote equality between the candidates. Still not perfect, as our president will re-run but hasn't yet announced it, and so can use every occasion to belittle his political opponents without being contradicted.
Any steps towards anything like that would be declared unconstitutional in the US. With much ranting and raving about the collapse of our freedoms.
And yet it works.
The whole idea is that :
1) democracy has a cost, which is worth paying;
2) everything should be done to lessen the weight of money in the democratic process.
This system was put in place after some huge corruption scandals, to compartimentalize political power from economic power. It doesn't do miracles in this regard, but it's better that "bought" elections. At least, our politicians aren't obligated to be in the pockets of our corporations; some still go this way if they are so inclined.
For twenty years now, campaign financing has been regulated by the government.There is an upper limit on every contender budget. They get reimbursed afterwards provided that the "Cour constitutionnelle" (our SCOTUS) validates their campaign accounts; fringe contenders falling below the 5% mark get less money back, to discourage opportunistic candidates.
Their financing comes from a straight loan (for mainstream candidates), or from campaign contributions (with an upper limit per physical person and per year; corporations aren't allowed to contribute at all since 1995, but other political parties can). It's not perfect, still subject to abuse, but the holes have been slowly plugged with additional laws.
Political TV ads are simply forbidden. Speaking time on TV (during news, political shows, etc.) is strictly regulated to promote equality between the candidates. Still not perfect, as our president will re-run but hasn't yet announced it, and so can use every occasion to belittle his political opponents without being contradicted.
Any steps towards anything like that would be declared unconstitutional in the US. With much ranting and raving about the collapse of our freedoms.
And yet it works.The whole idea is that :
1) democracy has a cost, which is worth paying;
2) everything should be done to lessen the weight of money in the democratic process.This system was put in place after some huge corruption scandals, to compartimentalize political power from economic power. It doesn't do miracles in this regard, but it's better that "bought" elections. At least, our politicians aren't obligated to be in the pockets of our corporations; some still go this way if they are so inclined.
I could get behind this.
Both of you are pretty big jokes. :)So was mine.That was a joke.Flamewar back on, you anti-goblin bigot!To be fair, he is a goblin.
So that's how you use emoticons!
According to what I've read, including the video that Citizen Pres Man has linked, it was the cops that blocked the bridge in order to arrest the protestors.I'm still waiting for the evidence I'm wrong so you can prove it to me. Give me a situation where OWS is causing the blockage of roads like you've been harping on. And show me how it is different from any other demonstration.Wasn't this a situation that arose pretty early on?
Still there are protesters on the bridge in the traffic lanes. It is not just a bunch of cops that just decided to close off the road for the hell of it and a bunch of drivers that are getting held up.
I mean, if you want to say the cops caused the situation like some have said (suggesting the cops told the protesters to take the bridge and then arrested them for it), that is one thing. But there is no doubt the protesters are there and not just the cops.
There are truth in advertising laws for commercial speech. AFAIK, they apply as strongly to individuals as to corporations. They're more often applied to corps, because unincorporated people don't do a lot of commercial advertising.
Okay, there ARE already exceptions to your "absolute" freedom of speech right.
I guess you also have got some anti commu... I mean, anti sedition laws too, from the McCarthy era.
If there is exceptions for commercial speech, why not some others for the political speech?
That's strictly a content distinction though. A corporation can still speak freely in other fields: mostly by donating money to political organizations.
Only individual people can donate to candidates and the amount is limited, but anyone, including corporations, spend unlimited amounts on their own political speech. This is most often done by donating to groups that pool the money, hide it's origins and do their own political advertising.
As TV ads are flatly prohibited, we don't have this particular problem. Non contenders aren't allowed to participate in the TV campaign, period.
On the other hand, newspapers can be strongly aligned with any candidate they want. I guess that "independant third party" advertizing could be possible, but it isn't done. Maybe because it could afterwards be included into the campaign account of the candidate ; if the legal limit is exceded, there is cause for invalidation of the election.
Man, this thread exploded the last 12 hours or so!
Just to try to put things back on track:
If you say something like, say, protesters should be arrested if they are a public danger, and then say that determining if something is a public danger is solely the purview of those in power, who coincidentally the protesters are protesting, you very quickly have protesting outlawed. They will ALWAYS find a way to rationalize shutting up those that disagree with them.
Again, the whole point of a protest is to BE a nuisance. If you say "you an protest, just don't be a nuisance" then you're saying "don't protest".
As far as I know, Zucotti park is not a typical emergency services route.
Also, what is with all this slavish adherence to "the law"? Like the law can't possibly be wrong or incomplete or biased or anything. IIRC we had someone saying upthread (though it may have been a different thread, they are all blending together in my mind) that it was every American citizen's duty to obey the law. Bull f!~@ing s*!*.
Right now, the way things are going, you have an absolute right to free speech if you're a corporation, but if you're just a lowly taxpayer/voter/citizen/troublemaker you only have the right to free speech if it doesn't upset said corporations' delicate sensibilities.
The state is made up of, and controlled by, the people. The people have a right to free speech and free assembly. Anyone or anything that obstructs the exercise of free speech is an enemy of the people and ergo an enemy of the state. Therefore, the state is an enemy of the state.
According to what I've read, including the video that Citizen Pres Man has linked, it was the cops that blocked the bridge in order to arrest the protestors.I'm still waiting for the evidence I'm wrong so you can prove it to me. Give me a situation where OWS is causing the blockage of roads like you've been harping on. And show me how it is different from any other demonstration.Wasn't this a situation that arose pretty early on?Still there are protesters on the bridge in the traffic lanes. It is not just a bunch of cops that just decided to close off the road for the hell of it and a bunch of drivers that are getting held up.
I mean, if you want to say the cops caused the situation like some have said (suggesting the cops told the protesters to take the bridge and then arrested them for it), that is one thing. But there is no doubt the protesters are there and not just the cops.
The protestors, according to your source, were traveling across the bridge – which isn’t illegal as far as I know – to get to the OWS protest – which may or may not have been on a road. The cops are the ones blocking the bridge and not allowing travelers to cross.
Apple:
Theres a few problems with relying on the people we elect to shut off free speech, allegedly on our behalf
1) 51% of the population does not have the right to use the police to tell 49% of the population to shut up. The ability to express your opinion is a right of the individual, and cannot be suppressed by other individuals, even if there are more of them.
2) Government is hardly an accurate expression of the will of the majority, given how often politicians lie and how various interest groups corrupt the process.
3) The first thing any politician does with the ability to declare speech inflamatory is to stop people from saying bad things about them. Even the true stuff. ESPECIALLY the true stuff, gaining himself an unfair advantage in the next election.
The protestors, according to your source, were traveling across the bridge – which isn’t illegal as far as I know – to get to the OWS protest – which may or may not have been on a road. The cops are the ones blocking the bridge and not allowing travelers to cross.According to what I've read, including the video that Citizen Pres Man has linked, it was the cops that blocked the bridge in order to arrest the protestors.I'm still waiting for the evidence I'm wrong so you can prove it to me. Give me a situation where OWS is causing the blockage of roads like you've been harping on. And show me how it is different from any other demonstration.Wasn't this a situation that arose pretty early on?Still there are protesters on the bridge in the traffic lanes. It is not just a bunch of cops that just decided to close off the road for the hell of it and a bunch of drivers that are getting held up.
I mean, if you want to say the cops caused the situation like some have said (suggesting the cops told the protesters to take the bridge and then arrested them for it), that is one thing. But there is no doubt the protesters are there and not just the cops.
They are in the car lanes. Seriously, you are blocking all the car lanes and you don't think that is a problem. "As far as I know, blocking all the car lanes is not illegal." Really?
Edit: Also there was a pedestrian walk that the protest got off of to block the traffic lanes.
Apple:
Theres a few problems with relying on the people we elect to shut off free speech, allegedly on our behalf
1) 51% of the population does not have the right to use the police to tell 49% of the population to shut up. The ability to express your opinion is a right of the individual, and cannot be suppressed by other individuals, even if there are more of them.
2) Government is hardly an accurate expression of the will of the majority, given how often politicians lie and how various interest groups corrupt the process.
3) The first thing any politician does with the ability to declare speech inflamatory is to stop people from saying bad things about them. Even the true stuff. ESPECIALLY the true stuff, gaining himself an unfair advantage in the next election.
Again, I'm not arguing for no free speech protection, I'm arguing for no absolute free speech protection, such as the first amendment. France, Germany, Britain, Australia, and Canada all get along just fine with having general free speech protection that still allows inflammatory public behavior to be outlawed.
Again, I'm not arguing for no free speech protection, I'm arguing for no absolute free speech protection, such as the first amendment.
And who are you going to give the power to outlaw speech to?
Again, I'm not arguing for no free speech protection, I'm arguing for no absolute free speech protection, such as the first amendment.And who are you going to give the power to outlaw speech to?
Elected officials, within reason. My above listed countries are all showcasing of how this can work out just fine.
The protestors, according to your source, were traveling across the bridge – which isn’t illegal as far as I know – to get to the OWS protest – which may or may not have been on a road. The cops are the ones blocking the bridge and not allowing travelers to cross.According to what I've read, including the video that Citizen Pres Man has linked, it was the cops that blocked the bridge in order to arrest the protestors.I'm still waiting for the evidence I'm wrong so you can prove it to me. Give me a situation where OWS is causing the blockage of roads like you've been harping on. And show me how it is different from any other demonstration.Wasn't this a situation that arose pretty early on?Still there are protesters on the bridge in the traffic lanes. It is not just a bunch of cops that just decided to close off the road for the hell of it and a bunch of drivers that are getting held up.
I mean, if you want to say the cops caused the situation like some have said (suggesting the cops told the protesters to take the bridge and then arrested them for it), that is one thing. But there is no doubt the protesters are there and not just the cops.
They are in the car lanes. Seriously, you are blocking all the car lanes and you don't think that is a problem. "As far as I know, blocking all the car lanes is not illegal." Really?
Edit: Also there was a pedestrian walk that the protest got off of to block the traffic lanes.
The police are the ones blocking the flow of travel.
People are peacefully traveling across the bridge. The police use violence to stop them from moving forward. The cops are blocking traffic. If pedestrians using the bridge is illegal, seems silly but fair enough. (not saying illegal = not right, that is another discussion)
But if the reason it is illegal is so traffic is not impeded (your claim?), then what sense does it make to stop the pedestrians from moving along toward their destination - off the bridge presumably?
While if the goal is to impend citizens from attending a protest, the police’s actions make perfect sense.
They are in the car lanes. Seriously, you are blocking all the car lanes and you don't think that is a problem. "As far as I know, blocking all the car lanes is not illegal." Really?
Edit: Also there was a pedestrian walk that the protest got off of to block the traffic lanes.
Again, from what I've heard, the pedestrians were walking on that pedestrian walk. They got off the ped walk when the police ordered them to, then used the fact that they were no longer on the ped walk as an excuse to arrest them.
|
Yes, you're right. Deliberately block the flow of emergency vehicles and, miraculously, there's no chance that anyone will get hurt as a result.Now there's a huge leap of logic. Nice jump check.
The next step in your plan is for someone to end up dead because emergency vehicles were impeded by the crowd.
Wait, what? They went from possibly blocking a hypothetical ambulance that was driving
off-road through a park to "deliberately block(ing) the flow of emergency vehicles"?Do you believe that this is happening, has happened somewhere or that there are plans to do so? If so, why is that belief based on?
Awesome name :)
Again, I'm not arguing for no free speech protection, I'm arguing for no absolute free speech protection, such as the first amendment. France, Germany, Britain, Australia, and Canada all get along just fine with having general free speech protection that still allows inflammatory public behavior to be outlawed.Apple:
Theres a few problems with relying on the people we elect to shut off free speech, allegedly on our behalf
1) 51% of the population does not have the right to use the police to tell 49% of the population to shut up. The ability to express your opinion is a right of the individual, and cannot be suppressed by other individuals, even if there are more of them.
2) Government is hardly an accurate expression of the will of the majority, given how often politicians lie and how various interest groups corrupt the process.
3) The first thing any politician does with the ability to declare speech inflamatory is to stop people from saying bad things about them. Even the true stuff. ESPECIALLY the true stuff, gaining himself an unfair advantage in the next election.
And America gets along just fine (relative to these other countries) with the first amendment and for quite awhile now.
Please explain how a mayor being shouted down for being a hypocritical, self serving douche brings our country down?