TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- British Party Leader Arrested for “Inciting Hate”. Free Speech Surrenders …
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

"All extremist should be taken out and shot".

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish I take it there is some law to legislate for that otherwise he wouldn't put in that little caveat. And it's not about protecting them it's about protecting people from them.

The key phrase is: "clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.

Meaning the standard is so rediculously high that for the state to engage in the restriction of the freedom of speech, the act must preclude imminent loss of life. If you follow through to the case it references, the supreme court expands on its judgement:

quote:

very recently we have also suggested that 'clear and present danger' is an appropriate guide in determining the constitutionality of restrictions upon expression where the substantive evil sought to be prevented by the restriction is 'destruction of life or property, or invasion of the right of privacy.' Moreover, the likelihood, however great that a substantive evil will result cannot alone justify a restriction upon freedom of speech or the press. The evil itself must be 'substantial', Brandeis, J., concurring in Whitney v. California, supra, 274 U.S. at page 374, 47 S.Ct. at page 647; it must be 'serious', Id., 274 U.S. at page 376, 47 S.Ct. at page 648, 71 L.ed. 1095. And [314 U.S. 252, 263] even the expression of 'legislative preferences or beliefs' cannot transform minor matters of public inconvenience or annoyance into substantive evils of sufficient weight to warrant the curtailment of liberty of expression. Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 161 , 60 S.Ct. 146, 151. What finally emerges from the 'clerk and present danger' cases is a working principle that the substantive evil must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high before utterances can be punished. Those cases do not purport to mark the furthermost constitutional boundaries of protected expression, nor do we here. They do no more than recognize a minimum compulsion of the Bill of Rights. For the First Amendment6 does not speak equivocally. It prohibits and law 'abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.' It must be taken as a command of the broadest scope that explicit language, read in the context of a liberty- loving society, will allow. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-b...4&invol=252#262

Essentially a speech that merely sets of civil disturbances, unrest, or even minor rioting is not justification to curtail first amendment freedoms. Imminent loss of life or the curtailment of another's right to privacy must be "clear and present" in order to warrant action. Some guy saying that Islam is a "vicious, wicked religion" doesn't quite ring home as a clear and presnt danger" of a substantive evil that is of imminent loss of life. A situation of that magnitutde would probably be a speaker who is arming a mob with weapons and preparing them to roam the streets in civil insurrection. In such a situation there is an identifiable clear and imminent danger.

quote:

Btw MI5 doesn't arrest anyone they just provide information. Tougher laws as a deterant could actually reduce the prison population,

Great so you're not adverse to them having sweeping surveillance powers to provide the police with information to arrest criminals?

quote:

no leaders (instigators) for these hate groups>>>less organised groups>>>less new recuits>>>less hate crime>>>less criminals

No Hamas leaders >> Less organized groups >> Less recruits >> Less suicide bombings >> Less terrorists

I guess it's worked for Israel.

quote:

It isn't a "just to be safe" law it's about curtailing the propegation of hate based upon race (note you can hate a race yourself all you like). Something I think is posative, and socity as a whole think is posative. So it's law, no high drama, no secret survailance. If there was a dogdy use of the law the papers would love to hear it (as you've demonstrated).

It's a law about curtailing the freedom of speech. You're saying: "Oh it's ok if you hate another race or a religion (soon to come) yourself ... you just can't say anything about it to anyone else." Why even allow the person to practice hate even if he keeps it to himself? If he's not allowed to speak of it to anyone else for fear of the propogation of racial hatred, obviously you're trying to rid society of all racial hatred so why allow him to practice hate himself? So arrest him if people find journals or writings where he gives himself away as a racial bigot. So if society deems something as positive, even if it curtails individual freedoms, it's a-ok? Once again that brings us all the way back to legislating morality and societal standards across the broader population.

quote:

And this whole thread should e underpinned but the fact that the guy in question hasn't even been found guilty yet.......

Yea and all those protestors who were arrested while protesting at the Republican national convention and held in holding cells for hours is ok because they were never found guilty of anything ...

quote:

[By the way in terms restriction of freedoms and so on there are far worse laws on both sides of the pond.]

This isn't an us vs. them issue. I've criticized more than my fair share of American civil liberties violations. Just because there are American civil liberty violations means I can't criticize civil liberties infractions across the pond?

quote:

How exactly is this that bad? They recived complaints took him in for questioning. He come out with "Whereas once you were innocent until proven guilty, Gloucestershire police now assume you are guilty until proven innocent." what a load of rubbish you got questioned not jailed thats normal process it's just a big issue because it's happening to you.

quote:

Mr Page duly attended the meeting with two officers, but when he refused to answer questions without his lawyer present he was arrested and taken to Cambridge police station, spending 40 minutes in a cell. He was told that he would have to stay there overnight if he wished to wait for his lawyer to attend, and so eventually agreed to be interviewed without him.

How is that NOT a presumption of guilt until proven innocent? He wasn't charged with anything, so he has to wait in jail until he answers the police's questions??? If that's not abuse of the law I don't know what is ... wow I guess people aren't concerned about unwarranted detentions as they used to be. So long as you aren't found guilty it's ok???

If you go even slightly deeper than that one quote about islam(I'm quite busy just now so I can't explore this as much as I'd want to):

quote:

"BLOW UP MOSQUES" One BNP member was filmed confessing to a violent assault on an Asian man, while another admitted to pushing dog excrement through the door of an Asian takeaway. Other evidence collected included a man saying he wanted to attack mosques and kill Asians, and members plotting to firebomb a van distributing anti-BNP leaflets.

LINK


Some details on the law rather than conjecture.

quote:

THE offence of inciting racial hatred is difficult to prove – there have been only 21 successful convictions in the last decade.

also

quote:

Its own (that is the Crown Prosecution Service) guidance states: "Hatred is a very strong emotion. Stirring up racial tension, opposition, even hostility may not necessarily be enough to amount to an offence.

and

quote:

CPS guidance states: "We have to balance the rights of an individual to freedom of expression against the duty of the state to step in to prevent violence or the threat of violence."

LINK


But in the US....

quote:

Under the USA Patriot Act, the secretary of state, in consultation with the attorney general, is authorized to designate terrorist organizations for immigration purposes. Persons who provide support to or associate with organizations on the Terrorist Exclusion List may be denied entry to the United States, or deported if they are already in the United States. The law states that the secretary may designate an organization that "commits or incites to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity."

LINK

So based upon the attorney general's (one man not a jury) opinion a group (say the BNP) could have every member deported just because they are 'associated' with them? Also would it be likely to be deporting KKK members (who you've said have commited terroist acts in the past.... define your way out of that one).... no..... this laws ment for the ehhhh..... "new people".

So where exactly is it that "Free Speech Surrenders"? I'm not trying to shift the issue just widen the debate. EDIT: And it isn't a us v. them thing either.

By the way I am enjoying this debate, good issues (and I'm the sort who likes to disagree to debate and properly explore issues, incase I piss anyone off).

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish If you go even slightly deeper than that one quote about islam(I'm quite busy just now so I can't explore this as much as I'd want to): quote: "BLOW UP MOSQUES" One BNP member was filmed confessing to a violent assault on an Asian man, while another admitted to pushing dog excrement through the door of an Asian takeaway. Other evidence collected included a man saying he wanted to attack mosques and kill Asians, and members plotting to firebomb a van distributing anti-BNP leaflets. LINK

Yes I paid close attention to the details before I posted as well. Griffin is not one of the BNP members who admitted to committing crimes on the documentary, other memebers did, in particular Steve Barkham and Dave Midgley. Griffin is solely charged with his speech, not criminal acts. Going "slightly deeper", Griffin apologized for and expelled those members guilty of confessing to actual crimes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3898695.stm

quote:

Some details on the law rather than conjecture. quote: THE offence of inciting racial hatred is difficult to prove – there have been only 21 successful convictions in the last decade.

Once again it appears you attempt to justify the law by illustrating how ineffective it is in actually obtaining a conviction. What do you need 200, 2000, 200,000 convictions to actually convince you to seriously question the law's impact on civil liberties? How many times has the government attempted to apply the law in an intimidation of free speech and failed? Does it not count unless a "guilty" verdict is delivered? Laws stand on principle ... not practicality, convenience, or effectivness.

quote:

also quote: also [quote] Its own (that is the Crown Prosecution Service) guidance states: "Hatred is a very strong emotion. Stirring up racial tension, opposition, even hostility may not necessarily be enough to amount to an offence. and quote: CPS guidance states: "We have to balance the rights of an individual to freedom of expression against the duty of the state to step in to prevent violence or the threat of violence."

Ummm ok so demonstrate how: "Islam is a vicious, wicked faith" extends beyond the scope of "Stirring up racial tension, opposition, even hostility". What imminent threat of violence overcomes the CPC's objective of an individual's right to freedom of expression?

quote:

But in the US.... quote: Under the USA Patriot Act, the secretary of state, in consultation with the attorney general, is authorized to designate terrorist organizations for immigration purposes. Persons who provide support to or associate with organizations on the Terrorist Exclusion List may be denied entry to the United States, or deported if they are already in the United States. The law states that the secretary may designate an organization that "commits or incites to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity." LINK So based upon the attorney general's (one man not a jury) opinion a group (say the BNP) could have every member deported just because they are 'associated' with them? Also would it be likely to be deporting KKK members (who you've said have commited terroist acts in the past.... define your way out of that one).... no..... this laws ment for the ehhhh..... "new people". So where exactly is it that "Free Speech Surrenders"? I'm not trying to shift the issue just widen the debate. EDIT: And it isn't a us v. them thing either.

Ummm I'm not quite sure your source understands legal documentation.

The quote that your source uses, "commits or incites to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity," comes from SEC. 411. DEFINITIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html


Sec 411 amends texts relating to Section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act covers:

212 GENERAL CLASSES OF ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE VISAS AND INELIGIBLE FOR ADMISSION; WAIVERS OF INADMISSIBILITY
http://www.immigration-usa.com/ina_96_title_2.html

Summarizing the effect of the Patriot Act on the text of Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the change allows the secretary of state and the attorney general to deport aliens who they deem as collaborators of terrorist organizations (even if it allowed them to deport civilians, would this be analagous to Tony Blair explicitly evicting Griffin?). Ultimately, the US cannot deport US citizens. As a matter of fact, funny that the issue were to arise now, but US courts just ruled that US citizens arrested abroad at the behest of the US government are entitled to the same legal rights that the constitution affords to US citizens on domestic soil:

http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/...6100009_12.html

quote:

By the way I am enjoying this debate, good issues (and I'm the sort who likes to disagree to debate and properly explore issues, incase I piss anyone off).

I always enjoy debates on constitutional fredomes and am almost never offended unless the arguemnt degrades to petty bickering.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ummm ok so demonstrate how: "Islam is a vicious, wicked faith" extends beyond the scope of "Stirring up racial tension, opposition, even hostility". What imminent threat of violence overcomes the CPC's objective of an individual's right to freedom of expression?

quote:

"[If you get a copy of the Koran] you will find verse after verse after verse which says that you can take any woman you want as long as they are not Muslim women; any woman that your right arm can own - that is the sword arm, the fighting arm, the arm you hit a white lad with a baseball bat. Any woman they can take by force or by guile is theirs."

By telling a room full of neo-Nazis that Muslims hit white people with baseball bats, not only does that negate the religious arguments (as this is clearly race as he has brought white people into the equasion, effectively saying Muslim = Asian) he is also stirring up hatred with the very real possibility of causing them to harm Asians

Basically he has told a load of thugs that the Koran says Asians can hit white people with baseball bats...what is their reaction likely to be?...

It is..."I would like to blow mosques up"

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley You mean the one currently residing at Her Majesty's pleasure charged with numerous terrorism offences?

about time.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley By telling a room full of neo-Nazis that Muslims hit white people with baseball bats, not only does that negate the religious arguments (as this is clearly race as he has brought white people into the equasion, effectively saying Muslim = Asian) he is also stirring up hatred with the very real possibility of causing them to harm Asians Basically he has told a load of thugs that the Koran says Asians can hit white people with baseball bats...what is their reaction likely to be?... It is..."I would like to blow mosques up"

What imminent violence did his speech generate? Can you even point to something remotely tangible? Furthermore, we're supposed to infer from his criticism of Islam and allusion to muslims attacking people that he's actually advocating for people to "blow mosques up"??? So if you're a poor person with a criminal background who's loitering in a rich neighborhood, I can infer that you're up to no good and arrest you for attempted robbery? Similarly, if his audience were intellectuals and college professors his statement would be permissible but because his audience is composed of Neo-Nazis it suddenly becomes illegal?? So let me get this straight ... based upon what can be inferrred from what you say and who your audience is, determines whether your speech is legal or not? That's free speech?

Please remind me to never speak in front of an audience that lacks proper credentials and to keep my words limited to content that avoids any confrontational or accusatory language that may invite any possiblity of "hate" associated with race or religion. My apologies for all the religous denegration I have ever committed on TA, jokingly or otherwise.

By the way, though exageration is prevalent, Griffin is factually correct:

quote:

33: The Clans 50 O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father's side, and the daughters of thine uncle on the mother's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother's side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage - a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers - We are Aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess - that thou mayst be free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. 51 Thou canst defer whom thou wilt of them and receive unto thee whom thou wilt, and whomsoever thou desirest of those whom thou hast set aside (temporarily), it is no sin for thee (to receive her again); that is better; that they may be comforted and not grieve, and may all be pleased with what thou givest them. Allah knoweth what is in your hearts (O men), and Allah is ever Forgiving, Clement.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider What imminent violence did his speech generate? Can you even point to something remotely tangible? Furthermore, we're supposed to infer from his criticism of Islam and allusion to muslims attacking people that he's actually advocating for people to "blow mosques up"??? So if you're a poor person with a criminal background who's loitering in a rich neighborhood, I can infer that you're up to no good and arrest you for attempted robbery? Similarly, if his audience were intellectuals and college professors his statement would be permissible but because his audience is composed of Neo-Nazis it suddenly becomes illegal?? So let me get this straight ... based upon what can be inferrred from what you say and who your audience is, determines whether your speech is legal or not? That's free speech? Please remind me to never speak in front of an audience that lacks proper credentials and to keep my words limited to content that avoids any confrontational or accusatory language that may invite any possiblity of "hate" associated with race or religion. My apologies for all the religous denegration I have ever committed on TA, jokingly or otherwise. By the way, though exageration is prevalent, Griffin is factually correct:

I am in no way saying you should not be able to criticise religions as they are the same as political ideologies...they change the way people act. However, this is a race issue, and there is no justification whatsoever to criticise race...race does not change people. There is no justification for murder so it is illegal, same with rape or theiving. There is no justification for racism so that should be illegal. You should not have the right to convince people that different races are different and even worse you should not be allowed to incite hatred of another race (which is what Nick Griffin has been rightfully arrested for) We do not live in an anarchic society and unless you are advocating such a society, then you have to accept that certain liberties will inevitably be restricted (through laws). Why does "freedom of speach" have to be immune from such restrictions like every other liberty is? Dont get me wrong, freedom of speach is an undeniable right, but some times it goes too far...

(I'd be quite interested to hear your views on Abu Hamza and see if you believe in his right to free speach?)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I am in no way saying you should not be able to criticise religions as they are the same as political ideologies...they change the way people act.

So I take it you're against the incitement of religious hatred law?

quote:

However, this is a race issue, and there is no justification whatsoever to criticise race...race does not change people. There is no justification for murder so it is illegal, same with rape or theiving. There is no justification for racism so that should be illegal. You should not have the right to convince people that different races are different and even worse you should not be allowed to incite hatred of another race (which is what Nick Griffin has been rightfully arrested for) We do not live in an anarchic society and unless you are advocating such a society, then you have to accept that certain liberties will inevitably be restricted (through laws). Why does "freedom of speach" have to be immune from such restrictions like every other liberty is? Dont get me wrong, freedom of speach is an undeniable right, but some times it goes too far...

Murdering, raping, and theiving constitute as violations of another person's inalienable rights. Speech that is offensive to me, does not infringe upon my rights. Furthermore, my desire to silence speech that is offensive to me does not supercede that individual's inalienable right to free speech regardless of how inappropriate the content may be. Unless said speech can be tangibly linked to a violation of my rights, such as a death threat, I cannot force the individual to keep silent. Such a mentality is hardly synonymous with an anarchic society as evidenced by the fact that many nations protect free speech regardless of whether it contains racial or religious hatred and are doing just fine. Lastly, it appears that no one can even tell me what specific parts about Griffin's speech should be illegal. So far it appears that we are supposed to convict him based upon our interpretations and inferences as to what he is "actually" saying (a notion that is so rediculously ludicrous to think of that a court would have such subjectivity in arresting a person), and who his audience is, both of which I think I have substantively addressed in my last post.

quote:

(I'd be quite interested to hear your views on Abu Hamza and see if you believe in his right to free speach?)

If the allegations of his aid to terrorist groups are true than he should be arrested. If he's simply saying that Muslims should rise up in Jihad and kill more Americans and whatnot, than he's entitled to his opinion. There's certainly Americans who think that we should indiscriminatly kill Muslims in Iraq, and they're entitled to their opinions.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley However, this is a race issue, and there is no justification whatsoever to criticise race...race does not change people.

How is that racism? It's directed against muslims, and muslims are not a race unless their religion somehow caused an evolutionary leap of which we're all unaware of except you.

quote:

You should not have the right to convince people that different races are different

WTF? How are different races not different? If they'd all be the same then there would be no notion of race in the first place, and you couldn't tell white and black people apart. There's no point in denying the obvious because someone's feelings might get hurt. People are not equal, sad but true.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 How is that racism? It's directed against muslims, and muslims are not a race unless their religion somehow caused an evolutionary leap of which we're all unaware of except you.

Jesus Christ have you actually read any of my posts?

quote:

WTF? How are different races not different? If they'd all be the same then there would be no notion of race in the first place, and you couldn't tell white and black people apart. There's no point in denying the obvious because someone's feelings might get hurt. People are not equal, sad but true.

Your talking about appearances, I was talking about inside (I take it you donot believe there is any kind of mental differences between race right?)

quote:

Originally posted by occrider So I take it you're against the incitement of religious hatred law?

Well I dont know what it looks like yet but I should imagine I would be against it yes (altho there should be some law to stop people inciting others to kill different religions like Hamza)

quote:

Murdering, raping, and theiving constitute as violations of another person's inalienable rights. Speech that is offensive to me, does not infringe upon my rights. Furthermore, my desire to silence speech that is offensive to me does not supercede that individual's inalienable right to free speech regardless of how inappropriate the content may be. Unless said speech can be tangibly linked to a violation of my rights, such as a death threat, I cannot force the individual to keep silent. Such a mentality is hardly synonymous with an anarchic society as evidenced by the fact that many nations protect free speech regardless of whether it contains racial or religious hatred and are doing just fine. Lastly, it appears that no one can even tell me what specific parts about Griffin's speech should be illegal. So far it appears that we are supposed to convict him based upon our interpretations and inferences as to what he is "actually" saying (a notion that is so rediculously ludicrous to think of that a court would have such subjectivity in arresting a person), and who his audience is, both of which I think I have substantively addressed in my last post.

Well I have already said how his comments are more to do with race than religion (he uses religion as an excuse to have a go at the asians which the comments re. hitting white lads with baseball bats).

I can accept that one persons individual views can do little harm, but when that person attempts to persuade others to racist thinking that is very dangerous (and led to riots in Oldham and Bradford). I'm sorry but you should not be allowed to incite others to racial hatred...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Well I dont know what it looks like yet but I should imagine I would be against it yes (altho there should be some law to stop people inciting others to kill different religions like Hamza)

So based upon the ex-British home secretary's justification of the Religious hate law (from Dervish's post), how do you justify the racial hate law since the religious hate law uses the very same rationale and definition?

quote:

Well I have already said how his comments are more to do with race than religion (he uses religion as an excuse to have a go at the asians which the comments re. hitting white lads with baseball bats). I can accept that one persons individual views can do little harm, but when that person attempts to persuade others to racist thinking that is very dangerous (and led to riots in Oldham and Bradford). I'm sorry but you should not be allowed to incite others to racial hatred...

But you fail to address my arguments as to the specifics of the rule of law and Griffin's statements. I cannot continue my argument unless you address them because they attack the fundamental principles of the racial/religious hate laws which reveals a very real danger of an inconsistent and subjective application of the law. The possibility of inconsistentely and subjectivity in the law is not my primary concern, but it speaks of how the law is principally flawed. While it would be nice if life allowed the rule of law to be based on common sense, that is not the case. Laws are founded on principle for a reason.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider So based upon the ex-British home secretary's justification of the Religious hate law (from Dervish's post), how do you justify the racial hate law since the religious hate law uses the very same rationale and definition?

Er...because one is race and one is for religion!

quote:

But you fail to address my arguments as to the specifics of the rule of law and Griffin's statements. I cannot continue my argument unless you address them because they attack the fundamental principles of the racial/religious hate laws which reveals a very real danger of an inconsistent and subjective application of the law. The possibility of inconsistentely and subjectivity in the law is not my primary concern, but it speaks of how the law is principally flawed. While it would be nice if life allowed the rule of law to be based on common sense, that is not the case. Laws are founded on principle for a reason.

Well as I am not a law graduate or a solicitor I cant possibly comment on the specifics until after he's appeared in court (so that somebody else will have commented for me!) I did however watch the documentary (which was not about Griffin specifically but about the activities of the BNP as a whole, of which Griffin is the leader and coordinator...)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Er...because one is race and one is for religion!

Yes however, they are based on the same principles. Are the ex-British home secretary's justification for the one on religion due to the fundamental similarities to the one on race incorrect?

quote:

Well as I am not a law graduate or a solicitor I cant possibly comment on the specifics until after he's appeared in court (so that somebody else will have commented for me!) I did however watch the documentary (which was not about Griffin specifically but about the activities of the BNP as a whole, of which Griffin is the leader and coordinator...)

Ok well I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree for now.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Yes however, they are based on the same principles. Are the ex-British home secretary's justification for the one on religion due to the fundamental similarities to the one on race incorrect?

It makes no difference whether they are based on the same principles, race and religion are different. We all agree it is justified to criticise religion (obviously not to the extent you preach that it is ok to kill people from other religions as Hamza did) as religion is a choice, and it also can change the way people behave, whereas race is not a choice and it does not change the way people behave, and therefore there is no justification in criticising it (or inciting hatred of it which is what the BNP do...)

quote:

Ok well I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree for now.

Well we will see what he is accused of when he returns to court because until then we don't actually know any details...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley It makes no difference whether they are based on the same principles, race and religion are different. We all agree it is justified to criticise religion (obviously not to the extent you preach that it is ok to kill people from other religions as Hamza did) as religion is a choice, and it also can change the way people behave, whereas race is not a choice and it does not change the way people behave, and therefore there is no justification in criticising it (or inciting hatred of it which is what the BNP do...)

And I've raised this issue before, the rule of law is based on principle, not your subjective evaluation of what is "ok" and "not ok." If you can't defend the law on principle than it's not a very good law.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider And I've raised this issue before, the rule of law is based on principle, not your subjective evaluation of what is "ok" and "not ok." If you can't defend the law on principle than it's not a very good law.

No its like saying it is wrong to kill a human therefore it is wrong to kill an animal - two totally different things, but the same principle of not killing things...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley No its like saying it is wrong to kill a human therefore it is wrong to kill an animal - two totally different things, but the same principle of not killing things...

No I would argue it differentely. You punish someone for theft of property whether it be theft of something small (shoplifting), whether it be theft of something big (grand larsoney), or whether you're stealing from a company (embezzlement). You don't say embezzlement shouldn't be considered theft because it's like stealing from an animal. Fundamentally embezzlement is the same as the other forms of theft. The principle for punishing theft is the same for all three. With respect to the speech laws, you're punishing someone for hate speak that "incites" others. So why should the legality of hate speech be perfectly fine when it comes to religion, as opposed to race. It's still hate speech and therefore the law should logically apply to both.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider No I would argue it differentely. You punish someone for theft of property whether it be theft of something small (shoplifting), whether it be theft of something big (grand larsoney), or whether you're stealing from a company (embezzlement). You don't say embezzlement shouldn't be considered theft because it's like stealing from an animal. Fundamentally embezzlement is the same as the other forms of theft. The principle for punishing theft is the same for all three. With respect to the speech laws, you're punishing someone for hate speak that "incites" others. So why should the legality of hate speech be perfectly fine when it comes to religion, as opposed to race. It's still hate speech and therefore the law should logically apply to both.

i give up mate

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley i give up mate

Yes well it's your laws ... if you're happy with them, that's no sweat off my back

(Sorry I've missed most of this btw)

But I think if you want to discuss the principle of the law, it is basically the principle that you can have an opinion contrary to what society find acceptable you can voice it too. But you cannot incite others to carry out things contrary to what we find acceptable.

This example is one I think covers it best.

Child porn why is it illegal if you didn't make it? Because by downloading/buying porn you incite others to make it. You aren’t making it only inciting others to make it.

It is a restriction on what you can do because we find it unacceptable.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish (Sorry I've missed most of this btw) But I think if you want to discuss the principle of the law, it is basically the principle that you can have an opinion contrary to what society find acceptable you can voice it too. But you cannot incite others to carry out things contrary to what we find acceptable. This example is one I think covers it best. Child porn why is it illegal if you didn't make it? Because by downloading/buying porn you incite others to make it. You aren’t making it only inciting others to make it. It is a restriction on what you can do because we find it unacceptable.

Child pornography is slightly different in the sense that a crime has already been committed in the production of child pornography. In order to make the film, you must first abuse the child. Because the images seen involve the abuse of children in the production process, possession of child pornography can be interpreted as aiding and abetting in the production process. Using a different crime as an analogy, if a person robs a bank, and you provide aid, comfort, or accept proceeds of his crime with the full knowledge that that individual committed a crime, you can be charged as an accessory after the fact.

As a matter of fact, congress did indeed attempt to pass a law to prevent the "incitement" of child pornography. It prohibited:

"any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." The prohibition on "any visual depiction" does not depend at all on how the image is produced. The section captures a range of depictions, sometimes called "virtual child pornography," which include computer-generated images, as well as images produced by more traditional means.
-Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996

It essentially banned pornography that used young looking girls, or "virtual" girls that depicted child pornography because, "[A] child who is reluctant to engage in sexual activity with an adult, or to pose for sexually explicit photographs, can sometimes be convinced by viewing depictions of other children 'having fun' participating in such activity." Furthermore, pedophiles might "whet their own sexual
appetites" with the pornographic images, "thereby increasing the creation and distribution of child pornography and the sexual abuse and exploitation of actual children." Id. notes (4), (10)(B).

The fundamental principle was that harm flowed from the content of the images, not from the means of their production. The Supreme Court decided the issue in ASHCROFT v. FREE SPEECH COALITION and they concluded:


The sexual abuse of a child is a most serious crime and an act repugnant to the moral instincts of a decent people. In its legislative findings, Congress recognized that there are subcultures of persons who harbor illicit desires for children and commit criminal acts to gratify the impulses. Congress also found that surrounding the serious offenders are those who flirt with these impulses and trade pictures and written accounts of sexual activity with young children.

Congress may pass valid laws to protect children from abuse, and it has. The prospect of crime, however, by itself does not justify laws suppressing protected speech. It is also well established that speech may not be prohibited because it concerns subjects offending our sensibilities. See FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) ("The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it"); see also Reno v. American Civil Liberties
Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)....

Ferber upheld a prohibition on the distribution and sale of child pornography, as well as its production, because these acts were "intrinsically related" to the sexual abuse of children in two ways. First, as a permanent record of a child's abuse, the continued circulation itself would harm the child who had participated. Like a defamatory statement, each new publication of the speech would cause new injury to the child's reputation and emotional well-being. Second, because the traffic in child pornography was an economic motive for its production, the State had an interest in closing the distribution network.* * * * * Under either rationale, the speech had what the Court in effect held was a proximate link to the crime from which it came.
* * * * *

In contrast to the speech in Ferber, speech that itself is the record of sexual abuse, the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not "intrinsically related" to the sexual abuse of children, as were the materials in Ferber. While the Government asserts that the images can lead to actual instances of child abuse, the causal link is contingent and indirect. The harm does not necessarily follow from the speech, but depends upon some unquantified potential for subsequent criminal acts.

The CPPA, for reasons we have explored, is inconsistent with Miller and finds no support in Ferber. The Government seeks to justify its prohibitions in other ways. It argues that the CPPA is necessary because pedophiles may use virtual child pornography to seduce children. There are many things innocent in themselves, however, such as cartoons, video games, and candy, that might be used for immoral purposes, yet we would not expect those to be prohibited because they
can be misused. The Government, of course, may punish adults who provide unsuitable materials to children, and it may enforce criminal penalties for unlawful solicitation. The precedents establish, however, that speech within the rights of adults to hear may not be silenced completely in an attempt to shield children from it.

Here, the Government wants to keep speech from children not to protect them from its content but to protect them from those who would commit other crimes. The principle, however, remains the same: The Government cannot ban speech fit for adults simply because it may fall into the
hands of children. The evil in question depends upon the actor's unlawful conduct, conduct defined as criminal quite apart from any link to the speech in question. This establishes that the speech ban is not narrowly drawn. The objective is to prohibit illegal conduct, but this restriction goes well beyond that interest by restricting the speech available to law-abiding adults.

The Government submits further that virtual child pornography whets the appetites of pedophiles and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct. This rationale cannot sustain the provision in question. The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it. The government "cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a person's private thoughts." First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.

To preserve these freedoms, and to protect speech for its own sake, the Court's First Amendment cases draw vital distinctions between words and deeds, between ideas and conduct. * * * * * The government may suppress speech for advocating the use of force or a violation of law only if "such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). There is here no attempt, incitement, solicitation, or conspiracy. The Government has shown no more than a remote connection between speech that might encourage thoughts or impulses and any resulting child abuse. Without a significantly stronger, more direct connection, the Government may not prohibit speech on the ground that it may encourage pedophiles to engage in illegal conduct.

http://www.journalism.wisc.edu/~dre...s/Ashcroft.html


Sorry for such a long quote. I really did try to edit out all non-pertinent portions and highlight the more significant parts.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.