firesong
Lecturer In Regular Oration(Lvl 4)
Posts: 136
|
Post by firesong on Aug 23, 2012 17:02:42 GMT -5
I always get the nagging feeling that America's "Freedom of speech" thing gets it wrong in a one sense. I mean any old Jack o' Bedlam can get up and say the most contentious, or insulting, or provocative shit imaginable, to whoever they like, and no matter what is said, they enjoy Legal protection from any consequences or recriminations they might provoke from people. So does Freedom of speech have a caveat that exempts the speaker from having to accept responsibility from any effects his words might provoke in others? Well... yes; called inciting to riot. Kinda like crying "fire" in a theater. Generally we feel that people are responsible for their own actions though. One of the good things about free speech, even if it's hate speech, is that you get to look the speaker in the eyes. Better in the light of day than in the back of a dark room, no? |
|
|
|
Post by BadBeast on Aug 23, 2012 18:08:20 GMT -5
Wow! That's a bit messed up. They'd have had me whisked off somewhere like a shot I reckon, if I lived there.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadBeast on Aug 23, 2012 18:16:56 GMT -5
I always get the nagging feeling that America's "Freedom of speech" thing gets it wrong in a one sense. I mean any old Jack o' Bedlam can get up and say the most contentious, or insulting, or provocative shit imaginable, to whoever they like, and no matter what is said, they enjoy Legal protection from any consequences or recriminations they might provoke from people. So does Freedom of speech have a caveat that exempts the speaker from having to accept responsibility from any effects his words might provoke in others? Well... yes; called inciting to riot. Kinda like crying "fire" in a theater. Generally we feel that people are responsible for their own actions though. One of the good things about free speech, even if it's hate speech, is that you get to look the speaker in the eyes. Better in the light of day than in the back of a dark room, no? I agree. But over here, Ii they're getting all "WBC" up in your face. we get the option of cracking him on the jaw too. (So long as it's not right under the nose of a Copper) Would that have consequences there? |
|
|
|
Post by The Mad Hatter on Aug 23, 2012 19:09:40 GMT -5
Well... yes; called inciting to riot. Kinda like crying "fire" in a theater. Generally we feel that people are responsible for their own actions though. One of the good things about free speech, even if it's hate speech, is that you get to look the speaker in the eyes. Better in the light of day than in the back of a dark room, no? I agree. But over here, Ii they're getting all "WBC" up in your face. we get the option of cracking him on the jaw too. (So long as it's not right under the nose of a Copper) Would that have consequences there? Yes, it's called assault. |
|
|
|
Post by StormInateacup on Aug 23, 2012 20:54:21 GMT -5
I agree. But over here, Ii they're getting all "WBC" up in your face. we get the option of cracking him on the jaw too. (So long as it's not right under the nose of a Copper) Would that have consequences there? Yes, it's called assault. I know a stripper in Kansas City and the girls from her burlesque bar met them when they came to town, all done up in stage gear, with portable poles and a band - set up opposite the religious whack jobs and set to work - and just plain sinned the fuckers back into their vans. Ida loved to have seen it. |
|
|
|
Post by ayezatulbrite on Aug 24, 2012 19:52:50 GMT -5
"US demands total impunity on war crimes: Ultimatum to Europe in advance of Iraq war", Fr: World Socialist Web Site, 12 October 2002 " In early 2003, Bush got his total exemption from War Crimes for himself, for his military commanders, and his soldiers, just in time for him to launch his war on March 20, 2003. Now that the truth of Depleted Uranium Munitions is beginning to unfold in the public eye, we can see why our President was so anxious about his potential criminal liability before the International Criminal Court! Proof that they planned atrocities - and that they planned to get away with it scot free too. they've also been using enriched uranium weapons and experimenting with directed energy weapons it would appear - US troops will get poisoned by their own munitions but at least they don't have to live there |
|
|
|
Post by ayezatulbrite on Aug 24, 2012 19:56:35 GMT -5
On the "Civil Rights" thing again, I just found a piece of US Legislation, that the whole World should be shouting about. "AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION TO OVERRIDE INTERNATIONAL LAW IN EXTRA-TERRITORIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES" June 21, 1989 *163 At the direction of the President or the Attorney General, the FBI may use its statutory authority to investigate and arrest individuals for violating United States law, even if the FBI's actions contravene customary international law. The President, acting through the Attorney General, has the inherent constitutional authority to deploy the FBI to investigate and arrest individuals for violating United States law, even if those actions contravene customary international law. Extraterritorial law enforcement activities that are authorized by domestic law are not barred even if they contravene unexecuted treaties or treaty provisions, such as Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. An arrest that is inconsistent with international or foreign law does not violate the Fourth Amendment." the Trans Pacific Partnership means that corporations are above US law which is above international law - so CORPORATIONS RULE BABY p.s. Obama signed the TPP in secret |
|
|
|
Post by BadBeast on Aug 25, 2012 13:59:51 GMT -5
On the "Civil Rights" thing again, I just found a piece of US Legislation, that the whole World should be shouting about. "AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION TO OVERRIDE INTERNATIONAL LAW IN EXTRA-TERRITORIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES" June 21, 1989 *163 At the direction of the President or the Attorney General, the FBI may use its statutory authority to investigate and arrest individuals for violating United States law, even if the FBI's actions contravene customary international law. The President, acting through the Attorney General, has the inherent constitutional authority to deploy the FBI to investigate and arrest individuals for violating United States law, even if those actions contravene customary international law. Extraterritorial law enforcement activities that are authorized by domestic law are not barred even if they contravene unexecuted treaties or treaty provisions, such as Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. An arrest that is inconsistent with international or foreign law does not violate the Fourth Amendment." the Trans Pacific Partnership means that corporations are above US law which is above international law - so CORPORATIONS RULE BABY p.s. Obama signed the TPP in secret Wonder why? Multi-Nationals have been blatantly operating above any level of Law for decades now. He probably thought he was being sneaky. Or relevant. Or both. |
|
|
|
Post by marisol on Aug 25, 2012 14:43:08 GMT -5
He thinks he's being sneaky, but we are not blind.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadBeast on Aug 25, 2012 14:58:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by BadBeast on Aug 30, 2012 16:30:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by StormInateacup on Aug 30, 2012 16:51:58 GMT -5
|
|
