Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (181445)	2/9/2006 1:56:36 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"In that sense there was freedom of speech in the old USSR too. You could say anything you wanted- -once. That's a total evasion. "Freedom of ..." means you get to do something WITHOUT governmemntal consequences. There are some limits on freedom of speech in the US too. You can't legally start a panic. You can't legally incite a riot. If you defame someone, you can be sued. But most things are allowed, including saying or publishing matters that apparently are illegal in Denmark. You CAN legally publish a cartoon such as any of those and the gov't can do nothing about it." Until the specific case goes to court and gets decided by a court of law. A case like that wouldn't last past the first court. The judge would throw the case out. They are clearly legal here under pre-established law. The only decision the court would make would be to tell the plaintiffs to get lost. Here is an example. This story was told and printed 100 years ago in Denmark. God made Adam but found out that Adam was dissatisfied. So God took one of Adam's ribs and made Eve. Sometime later God tried to find Adam but couldn't. Eventually God found Adam under a bush, untidy. Adam kneeled before God and said, "God, take all of my ribs and make women out of them. The editor got a fine(the prosecution tried to get jail time for the editor) and the author lost his support from the state. Today we laugh about that episode as I hope muslims will laugh about the present cartoon episode. A good example of excessive gov't control of the press. And now even you recognize that. "Maybe our editors should visit yours to find out where their backbone is again." That kind of "backbone" is irresponsibility. You call letting a group of foreign countries dictate the contents of you newspapers "irresponsibility"? I think you fail adly to understand what "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" mean. "...although not in line with what you preciously implied...." Your problem that you read too much into what is written. I read what is written. Your job is to make your meaning clear. I notice that neither you noe others have had problems understanding my meaning. "Yes, Europe spent more than a century straightening out that little mess. That's precisely why gov't should stay clear of religion." That's precisely why gov't should not stay clear of religion as they do in the US and in Denmark. Why? So we can have another century of religious wars of our own? The original wars resulted from gov'ts trying to force a corrupt religion down people's throats. "Check out Saudi Arabia. You'd BETTER be Muslim there." There you go again, mixing apples and oranges. We were talking about Denmark not SA. We were talking about Islam and Saudi claims to be the purest example. And you'd better do your research before getting into that question. I've been there. "Others who might have that on their mind seem to have noted that." Yes, and now they are getting local legislators to pass laws that impose unreasonable safety requirements on the abortion clinics. Laws which make the burden of going to higher courts extremely difficult. In Denmark the safety requirements are the same for all hospitals and clinics, both public and private. By the way, Wade vrs. Roe was an example of the impossibility of a total separation of church and state. In other words there are limits to freedom of speech as well as freedom of religion. I think you'd better research that decision. It wasn't decided on religious grounds by any means. The Court decided the Bill of Rights created a "penumbra" of a right to privacy and denying abortion violated that right. And you can bet any attempt by a state legislature to limit appeals to the federal courts is just going to generate more appeals to the federal courts. A state legislature CANNOT bar appeals to federal courts in this country.