|
|
|
|
| Welcome, Guest | Home | Search | Login | Register | |
| Author | Free Speech (Read 40741 times) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Minimalist
128 MB  Posts: 186 
|
on: March 10, 2008, 14:23
I've been giving some thought to the limits of free speech over the last couple of days. Mostly because it looks very likely that I'm going to be heading to court to defend my rights to free speech, among other things. An email that I received recently about a U.S. Courts decision to uphold a conviction on spamming got me to thinking about this. I guess that the lawyer for the defendant argued that his client had a right under the First Amendment to free speech, and that sending unsolicited spam emails amounts to nothing more than free speech as protected under the U.S. Constitution. Now I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an American and that I know diddly squat about American law. So I'd really prefer not to make this discussion U.S. centric. I'm really more interested in the general idea of free speech and the implications of having limits on what can be freely expressed and by what means. I'll also concede that I am not a lawyer and that I have no formal education in law. Yet, I don't feel it necessary to have a background in law or even political science in order to offer casual and informal debate and discussion on a topic that, for the most part, effects each and every one of us -- regardless of nationality. I suppose one must recognize that there exists somewhat of a principle in most free and democratic societies that people should enjoy certain fundamental freedoms. Of these freedoms, free speech and freedom of religion appear to be the ones that get the most press. Although I should also admit that I've not paid particular attention to rights issues prior to encountering rights issues of my very own. It seems that our rights are often taken for granted and are given little thought until they are infringed or denied. Yet, I'm sure we can all agree that there does indeed exist clear limits to what one can say. There are also very clear limits on what instances one can argue free speech as a defense. You wouldn't be able to file a false tax return, for example, and offer free speech in your defense. It is most unlikely that any court of competent jurisdiction would accept free speech or expression as a legitimate excuse for committing tax evasion or fraud. It's also unlikely that you could threaten to kill someone and then offer free speech as your defense. So there's very clear limits. What I'm particularly interested in is the balance between one person's rights and the rights of another. From looking at Court cases involving rights, I've come to recognize that no court generally accepts that one person's rights trump the rights of another. That is, one person's right to free speech does not give that person the right to silence anyone that disagrees with him or her. So it would seem that rights are intended to be inclusionary as opposed to exclusionary. That is, everyone must be able to enjoy the same rights or no one at all should be entitled to receive the right. Now, before I continue, I want to stress that there is a very definite distinction between a right and a privilege. A right is something that is usually guaranteed to all persons under law. A privilege is usually something that is available to those who are fortunate enough to receive it, but there is no law that implicitly or explicitly states he or she shall have it for as long as he or she chooses to have it. An example of a right would be the right to free speech or association. An example of a privilege would be the ability to broadcast your speech over the airwaves. Everyone gets the right to speak their minds, but few get the privilege of broadcasting what they think. Sticking with the idea of a distinction between a right and a 'privilege', it becomes clear to me how it is possible to restrict what a broadcaster may say or do on air without actually infringing the broadcaster's right to free speech or expression. Howard Stern would not be able to sue the FCC for infringing his right to free speech, for example, because Howard Stern has no right to broadcast. He simply has the privilege of being able to broadcast and is able to maintain that privilege by conducting himself within the limits established by the FCC. I'll continue this more as I give it some more thought... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lichen Software
|
128 MB Posts: 252 
Reply #1 on: March 10, 2008, 21:44
|
At this point, all I could say to you wouild be that at law, the first deliniation of your free speach rights is at the constitution level if free speech is explicitely mentioned. Otherwise, free speach begins it's life not as a right but as a privilege. This will vary from country to country. From there, it will very much depend on the law system in place. If there is a body of common law in place, then the further deliniation is from examination of the actual cases. Even where there is statute law to the contrary, if the statute law conflicts with the constitution, it is possible to challenge any law due to that reason. Here in Canada, there are hate laws that would challenge free speech. They appear to have been upheld in the courts as a "Necessary Limitation" in the name of the greater good.
|
Minimalist
|
128 MB Posts: 186
Reply #2 on: March 12, 2008, 23:08
|
Quote from: "Lichen Software"
Necessary on what basis? The target's right to life, liberty, and security of the person? The Charter here in Canada actually explicitly offers such a guarantee. I'm sure there can be no argument that hate speech does not impede one's right to life, liberty, and security. Hate speech, after all, is clearly aimed at isolating, alienating, and diminishing another person's quality of life, access to freedom and equal benefit, and their very security. Would you not agree?
|
dpaanlka
|
1024 MB Posts: 1646
Reply #3 on: March 13, 2008, 00:26
|
In Germany you can't have Nazi flags or utter the words sieg heil. Imagine that.
|
Lichen Software
|
128 MB Posts: 252
Reply #4 on: March 13, 2008, 02:44
|
Quote from: "Minimalist"
If I am reading you correctly, you are saying it is a double hit - guarantee under constitution and specific statue law. If so, yup. The difference is law provides for punishment. Violating the constitution I think just calls for a cease and desist and then you might have the option to sue for damages. The two together have teeth. You do however have to watch that they don't "over bight". :-)
|
Minimalist
|
128 MB Posts: 186
Reply #5 on: March 13, 2008, 03:52
|
Quote from: "dpaanlka" In Germany you can't have Nazi flags or utter the words sieg heil. Imagine that. In Germany they want to forget that the Nazi Party was even a part of their past. And who could blame them? In Poland, however, they keep the concentration camps open as a tourist attraction.
|
Minimalist
|
128 MB Posts: 186
Reply #6 on: March 13, 2008, 03:57
|
Quote from: "Lichen Software" You do however have to watch that they don't "over bight". :-) I see you take liberties with grammar and spelling as well. As do I, as do I.
|
Lichen Software
|
128 MB Posts: 252
Reply #7 on: March 13, 2008, 11:19
|
Quote from: "Minimalist"
English is a cheeky tart. It will steal from anywhere, mate with any language and when it cannot steal or mate it will just plane make up words. That is what makes it one of hte most dynamic languages on earth. I see no reason not to embrace that tradition. Hmmm ... there is a heritage moment in that
|
momo
|
8 MB Posts: 13
Reply #8 on: March 15, 2008, 01:42
|
Quote from: "Minimalist"
Be careful: Germany does not want to forget. It is actually the contrary: nazi concentration camps are open in Germany too (take Dachau, near Munich, for instance), and many other monuments in Berlin have been built as a memory of the holocaust. The point here is remembering how dreadful humanity can be; the Nazi party has done horrible things, but Germans are taught to live with their history, and to learn from these mistakes. The point of forbidding the nazi flags or other nazi-related expressions is not to forget what they mean, but it is instead way to not condone the racist ideas they convey (since all these symbols are being re-used all over the world by racist/extreme right-wing organisations). I am not German, although I live in Germany. I do not know where you are from, Minimalist, and I do not want to criticise your statements which were probably not meant to be offensive, but I believe that another version of the facts had to be exposed.
|
Minimalist
|
128 MB Posts: 186
Reply #9 on: March 15, 2008, 11:30
|
Quote from: "momo"
I am not American, although I live in Canada. I was under the impression that the allied forces destroyed what remained of the Nazi regime after the war. I recall watching a documentary where it was stated that the french attempted to destroy much of the Nazi built buildings, etcetera. I know that the German government sealed many of the old Nazi bunkers and such to prevent the public from gaining access to them because they would have been too costly to destroy. I believe that some of the old Nazi government buildings still exist and are used as government buildings even today. I believe one or more of these buildings still have the Nazi eagle over the entrance, albeit with the swastika removed. I suppose I would know more of what is and isn't still surviving in Germany of the Third Reich, if I actually lived in Germany. But I don't. Besides, this thread wasn't really about the Nazis or Germany, it was about free speech.
|
dpaanlka
|
1024 MB Posts: 1646
Reply #10 on: March 15, 2008, 17:32
|
In germany there are still quite a few Nazi-era buildings surviving, both those used in some capacity by the government, and those that aren't. Hitler was very keen on architecture, and personally involved himself with the design of almost every large scale construction project in the country. I find much of it quite impressive myself, and am actually disappointed hat the allies and the German governments have tried so hard to destroy it all. Thankfully, they didn't, and I don't think that is an active goal of the government any longer. In fact, one prime example is Hitler's 1936 Olympic Stadium in Berlin, which has recently been re-constructed and it's Nazi "flair" carefully preserved, right down to lamps and fixtures, which is a complete reversal of previous practice: 2_ZS0517_02_1.jpg 2_ZS0523_01_1.jpg 2_ZS0525_01_1.jpg The problem is, if Germany (and the EU) want to truly embrace free speech, as the United States does, they should not "ban" anybody's symbols or beliefs, because besides failing to actually limit persons who believe that way, they also limit people who are interested in the stuff from a historical standpoint. In the United States, we do not have a widespread neo-Nazi problem - they are simply mocked and ridiculed when they appear in public. I myself have several books, and a few collectable items, including a full size swastika flag used as the national flag from 1934 - 1945. If I were to move to Germany, I would have to get rid of those things, which is a shame.
|
Minimalist
|
128 MB Posts: 186
Reply #11 on: March 15, 2008, 23:27
|
I, personally, was impressed with the pomp and pageantry of the Nazi regime. As were most foreign governments and officials of the pre-war, pre-holocaust era. Barring their policies on race and human rights, the Third Reich was quite impressive. Unfortunately, given what we now know of the Third Reich, particularly in relation to their polices on race and human rights, and more so, their actions toward achieving those barbaric policy objectives, it is difficult to look beyond their evils and concede that there were some good points in their favour.
|
Minimalist
|
128 MB Posts: 186
Reply #12 on: March 16, 2008, 00:13
|
Harvard Law School has an impressive website dedicated to the Nuremburg trials. You can read transcripts, look at documents offered as exhibits, and get a complete who's who of those who stood trial, what they were convicted or aquitted of, and their sentence. Nuremburg Trials Project It fills one with a sense of hope for humanity to read: Indictments (25 Oct. 1946) Four counts: 1. Conspiracy to commit war crimes against humanity: The ordering, planning, and organization of the war crimes and crimes against humanity charged in counts two and three. Charged against all of the defendants. 2. War crimes: Charged against all defendants. 15 guilty, 8 acquitted. 3. Crimes against humanity: Charged against all defendants. 15 guilty, 8 acquitted. 4. Membership in a criminal organization: Membership in the SS. Charged against K. Brandt, Genzken, Gebhardt, R. Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Brack, Hoven, and Fischer. All found guilty. Defendants (with counts charged and verdicts) Becker-Freyseng, Hermann (Medical Inspectorate, Luftwaffe) (counts 1, 2, 3; guilty, 20 year prison term) Beiglboeck, Wilhelm (Dr., Luftwaffe Medical Service) (counts 1, 2, 3; guilty, 15 year prison term) Blome, Kurt (Dr., Office for Public Health; Reich Research Council) (counts 1, 2, 3; acquitted) Brack, Viktor (Oberdienstleiter, Chancellery) (counts 1, 2, 3, 4; guilty, executed 1948) Brandt, Karl (Dr., Commissioner for Public Health; Waffen-SS) (counts 1, 2, 3, 4; guilty, executed 1948) Brandt, Rudolf (SS Obersturmbannfuehrer, Himmler's personal staff) (counts 1, 2, 3, 4; guilty, executed 1948) Fischer, Fritz (Dr., assistant to Karl Gebhardt) (counts 1, 2, 3, 4; guilty, life in prison) Gebhardt, Karl (Prof. Dr.; officer in SS and Waffen-SS) (counts 1, 2, 3, 4; guilty, executed 1948) Genzken, Karl (Dr. surgeon-general, Waffen SS) (counts 1, 2, 3, 4; guilty, life in prison) Handloser, Siegfried (Prof. Dr., Chief of Armed Forces Medical Service) (counts 1, 2, 3; guilty, life in prison) Hoven, Waldemar (Dr., physician at Buchenwald; Waffen SS) (counts 1, 2, 3, 4; guilty, executed 1948) Mrugowsky, Joachim (Dr., Chief of Hygiene Institute, Waffen SS) (counts 1, 2, 3, 4; guilty, executed 1948) Oberheuser, Herta (Dr., assistant to Karl Gebhardt) (counts 1, 2, 3; guilty, 20 year prison term) Pokorny, Adolf (Dr.) (counts 1, 2, 3; acquitted) Poppendick, Helmut (Dr., Race and Settlement Office; SS officer) (counts 1, 2, 3, 4; guilty, 10 year prison term) Romberg, Hans (Dr., Institute for Aviation Medicine at DVL) (counts 1, 2, 3; acquitted) Rose, Gerhard (Prof. Dr., Robert Koch Institute; Luftwaffe Medical Service) (counts 1, 2, 3; guilty, life in prison) Rostock, Paul (Prof., Office for Medical Science and Research) (counts 1, 2, 3; acquitted) Ruff, Siegfried (Dr., Institute for Aviation Medicine at DVL) (counts 1, 2, 3; acquitted) Schaefer, Konrad (Dr., Schering AG; Institute for Aviation Medicine) (counts 1, 2, 3; acquitted) Schroeder, Oskar (Dr., Luftwaffe Medical Service) (counts 1, 2, 3; guilty, life in prison) Sievers, Wolfram Wolfram (Ahnenerbe Society; Reich Research Council) (counts 1, 2, 3, 4; guilty, executed 1948) Weltz, Georg (Dr., Institute for Aviation Medicine) (counts 1, 2, 3; acquitted) Nuremburg Trials Project Don't it give ya a warm fuzzy feeling?
|
dpaanlka
|
1024 MB Posts: 1646
Reply #13 on: March 16, 2008, 00:43
|
Quote from: "Minimalist" Don't it give ya a warm fuzzy feeling? Doesn't change my appreciation for Nazi architecture. Nazis killed a lot of Jews... we're all well aware of that.
|
Minimalist
|
128 MB Posts: 186
Reply #14 on: March 16, 2008, 00:59
|
Wasn't meant to change your appreciation of German architecture. A building is a building. The Nazis created the autobahn, too. No one is suggesting that people stop driving cars merely because the Nazis created highways. The large pharmaceutical company Bayer commissioned experiments on concentration camp inmates. No one is suggesting however, that people stop popping aspirin. Know what I mean? By the same token, it is ridiculous to suggest that those involved in the crimes of the Nazi regime should receive impunity merely because some good may have come from their many deeds. There's no excuses!
|
|
Pages: [1] 2
|
| |||||||||||||||
|
© 2021 System7Today.com. |
