Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
For one, we don't really have "Freedom of Speech", but "Freedom of Opinion/Expression", which might only be semantics.Stormbringer wrote:We have free speech, in the given limits.
Then it's not really free speech, now is it?
Oh they have free speech... but come on Stormbringer... Think about it, the Nazis drove Germany into the ground do you really think that the German people will stand for someone spouting nazi propaganda? The wrote their Basic law, and put a coupe limits on free speech, not to oppress people, but to make sure that nazis never came into power again.Stormbringer wrote:We have free speech, in the given limits.
Then it's not really free speech, now is it?
It's certainly not worth defending and there are plenty of people that spend a great deal refuting it. But it's also a dangerous precedent to have governments deciding what speech is acceptable.Colonel Olrik wrote:Better that than letting Nazi's wannabes organize parades inside our cities. We have the right to speak freely as long as it's not about how all jews, blacks and muslims should be shot on sight. I don't really find that right worthy of defense.Stormbringer wrote:We have free speech, in the given limits.
Then it's not really free speech, now is it?
Actually, probably. Though you can expect the Secret Service to start a nice little file on you.Colonel Olrik wrote:Can you repeteadly shout "death to the president" right outside the White House without getting arrested, btw?
It was an admittedly lame joke. But the English Royals are omnipresent in the News. I hate it. Important things happen, but the News talk about Royal sexual preferences and the possible Royal succession. Please get rid of them. Please ...Stuart Mackey wrote: Oh, what do the royals have to do with anything?
Lord Pounder wrote: BTW dummnutzer those "British Citizens" the SAS shot where IRA men and deserved everything they got. And CCTV is neccessary for coping with crime. Maybe your one of these asshole anarchists who believe than any law is bad.
Stormbringer wrote: Then it's not really free speech, now is it?
What does that have to do with Germany?Freedom of speech is great, but reporters rate the US as more oppressive than Germany. Sorry.
Again, it's a problem and one I hope with go away soon, but that has no bearing on the issue raised.And please read the US Patriot Act.
Again, this has no bearing on the topic at hand.Star Chamber Courts had been abolished in the Glorious Revolution, and now they are coming back.
Again, this has no bearing on the topic at hand.Declaring US-citizens enemy combatants, incarcerating them, shipping them abroad, possibly torturing them over there.
I hope they do but it has little to nothing to do with the issue at hand.Until now without judicial oversight. Let us hope the US Supreme Court shows some backbone.
It's not the governments. It's written in the Constitution, which means it's the Court job to decide if a certain organization is legal or not. At most, the government can only suggest it. Any changes in the Constitution can only be made, of course, through a 2/3 majority in the Assembly (Portugal) and after being ratified by the Constitutional Court. In any case, the decision is out of the governmnent hands.Stormbringer wrote: It's certainly not worth defending and there are plenty of people that spend a great deal refuting it. But it's also a dangerous precedent to have governments deciding what speech is acceptable.
Code: Select all
[quote="username"]quoted message[/quote]Yeah, just hit quote and copy the orginal quote. Go back to the thread, quote the second person and paste in the orginal quote.dummnutzer wrote:OT: One technical question. Is it possible to use the "quote"-function of this board to have different quotes by different authors in one reply? If yes, how? Thanks.
HA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHALord Pounder wrote:And CCTV is neccessary for coping with crime.
I may have been wrong, but there was a discussion going on with quotes from the Grundgesetz; the usual debate about real free speech in the US vs. allegedly limited free speech in Germany.Stormbringer wrote:What does that have to do with Germany?
The discussion was about freedom of speech. Which is currently de facto not sufficiently protected in the US, as one can be arrested without effective judicial oversight. So the reason for this lack of protection is relevant to this discussion.Stormbringer wrote: Again, this has no bearing on the topic at hand.
Actually, it's been suggested (with merit) that the Supreme Court has the power to effectively amend the Constitution through judicial interpretation. Through their briefs and interpretations of the Constitution, they effectively do change it.Colonel Olrik wrote:It's not the governments. It's written in the Constitution, which means it's the Court job to decide if a certain organization is legal or not. At most, the government can only suggest it. Any changes in the Constitution can only be made, of course, through a 2/3 majority in the Assembly (Portugal) and after being ratified by the Constitutional Court. In any case, the decision is out of the governmnent hands.
The problem is that your stastic is based mostly on non-governmental activites. It includes things like lawsuits, number of media companies, and such. It doesn't prove much.I may have been wrong, but there was a discussion going on with quotes from the Grundgesetz; the usual debate about real free speech in the US vs. allegedly limited free speech in Germany.
The statistic was just an example that an isolated part of a constitutional system (e.g. free speech) does not in itself creater greater freedom.
And you have yet to prove that they were jailed for things they said. Rather they were jailed for concrete actions, specifically consorting with known terrorists and planning a dirty bomb attack. If you can't see the difference between the two then you'd better break out the white cane.The discussion was about freedom of speech. Which is currently de facto not sufficiently protected in the US, as one can be arrested without effective judicial oversight. So the reason for this lack of protection is relevant to this discussion.
How can one enjoy free speech, if one can be imprisoned without judicial oversight? Does it matter whether one goes to jail for laesio majestatis or for some bogus act of terrorism?
About the possibility of torture: The US exports suspected terrorists to have them tortured abroad. It allows only very limited access to it overseas prison facilities. There were several death certificates with "blunt trauma" as cause of death in the Cuban prison. But I admittedly have no clear evidence.
And now the idiot who did that is on candid camera and a public enemy.MKSheppard wrote:HA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHALord Pounder wrote:And CCTV is neccessary for coping with crime.
*dies laughing*
*gasp*
I'm sorry? Cameras reduce crime? lol, all they do is show you getting the
shit beat out of you in PAL vision
I was just waiting for someone to do this....newsflash, virtually everyAdmiral Valdemar wrote: The fact that Lancaster and Southport are less violent because of CCTV also seems to help, not to mention the streets of Liverpool, Manchester and so forth.
It don't work like that here, that's a false analogy since we're talking the UK here not America. CCTV is a very major issue in crime prevention and solving, I never said it made our streets and stores crime free.MKSheppard wrote:I was just waiting for someone to do this....newsflash, virtually everyAdmiral Valdemar wrote: The fact that Lancaster and Southport are less violent because of CCTV also seems to help, not to mention the streets of Liverpool, Manchester and so forth.
convience store in America is wired for light and sound, and yeah, all
those cameras in the convience stores do a great job of preventing
crime
Every convience store here is wired and it does fuck all to reduce theAdmiral Valdemar wrote: It don't work like that here, that's a false analogy since we're talking the UK here not America. CCTV is a very major issue in crime prevention and solving, I never said it made our streets and stores crime free.
Which is why you have guns, Shep.MKSheppard wrote:Every convience store here is wired and it does fuck all to reduce theAdmiral Valdemar wrote: It don't work like that here, that's a false analogy since we're talking the UK here not America. CCTV is a very major issue in crime prevention and solving, I never said it made our streets and stores crime free.
murder rate of convience store clerks - unless of course, the clerks are
alrady behind armor plate glass and/or have a 12 gauge under the counter...
Course, 7-11 does neither, and relies on cameras and the nice clerks doing
everything the bad guys want, which results in the highest fatality rate in
the business
Germany's past has shown that too much free speech can be dangerous, as well.Stormbringer wrote:It has little to nothing to do with the ability of the government to limit free speech. I'm not saying Germany is an oppresive society, but neither does it have truly free speech. Something which in the hands of the wrong people could be dangerous.
well, then there´s no free speech anywhere. you can´t call someone an asshole in other countries. insulting people is illegal about everywhere. saying "sieg heil" or "kill all <insert ethnic group>" is pretty much the same as an insult (plus a threat and incitement), not an insult to an individual but an insult to an entire ethnic group.stormbringer wrote: Then it's not really free speech, now is it?
I don't know how it works in the rest of the world, but here, you can insult someone until you turn blue and nobody can do squat to you. What you can't do is SLANDER someone, which is deliberately lying about someone in order to ruin their reputation, but a general insult like "He's an asshole" isn't slander.salm wrote:well, then there´s no free speech anywhere. you can´t call someone an asshole in other countries. insulting people is illegal about everywhere. saying "sieg heil" or "kill all <insert ethnic group>" is pretty much the same as an insult (plus a threat and incitement), not an insult to an individual but an insult to an entire ethnic group.stormbringer wrote: Then it's not really free speech, now is it?
Germans are VERY sensitive to *anything* even slightly smelling of Naziism, antisemitism...Dark Hellion wrote:Let me get this straight, because the Nazis basically trashed Germany, you made laws against Nazi propaganda. So how the fuck is this propaganda going to be effective if you realize that the Nazis fucked up your country. Are people in Germany really stupid enough to go back to Nazism after what happened last time? If not, why have an arbitrary limit on freedom of speech?
Can one of you Germans please explain this, because its annoying the hell out of me.
