“Temporary? Are you sure? I dont think so, but like I said, I am not familiar with the history too much.”

Well, that was the argument at the time. That the protections would be rescinded when a balance was reached and they were no longer needed. But, over time, new classes have been added to the whole and the definition of an agreeable balance keeps changeling. Also, the protected classes are voting blocks who’s votes politicians buy by keeping the protections in place.

You’ve made some very good points about freedom of speech. I wish US law more closely matched your argument.

One good point in US civil law is that truth trumps slander. I.e., you can’t successfully sue someone for slander if they are telling the truth about you. Also, public persons have less protection in civil law from slander than do private persons.

0  0

0  0

The US’s affirmative action/quota laws and regulations were set in place as temporary measures about 30-35 years ago

Temporary? Are you sure? I dont think so, but like I said, I am not familiar with the history too much.

Jokesa,

Anti-discrimination laws may be brought in for very just reasons, but it would not be long, I fear, that such a law could be used against legitimate opposition and differences of opinion. How many prisoners of conscience are there around the world who have been sentenced for “prejudicing national unity” or similarly trumped up charges?

Precisely Jokesa! I wanted to mention this to you too Mahmood, but someone else beat me to it.

Freedom of speech has many facets, and it is those facets that often get confused and warped. I think this is a summary of them:

1) Freedom of communication.
2) Direct threats.
3) Slander.
4) Incitement to violence.

Now I will admit, number 1 encompases 2, 3 and 4. A faulty argument I have heard many times before when argueing with beardies is that “Well its illegal to threaten someone right? Thats speech right? Therefore this type of _insert_ speech must be banned too!”

What they dont realise is that 2, 3 and 4 are subsets of the whole, 1. So let me first lay out what must not be protected. What is left, is what must be protected:

I think 2, 3 and 4 must not be protected, for the reasons outlined below:

Threats must not be protected, because they inform one of an action to harm them, albiet, a delayed one. When you threaten someone, you are informing them of your intention to do them bodily harm, or destruction of property, etc. Thus, “I will kill you” must not be protected speech.

Slander I think is a little tricker because it involves reputation. More to the point, slander involves the falsification of ones reputation. Why is the falsification of ones reputation important? It is important because it has the potential to harm ones interaction within his society, which would previously not have been harmed, had his reputation not been falsified. The easiest quantifier for this is money. How much monetary impact did a falsification of your reputation cause you?

I think that if there is enough evidence that slander has caused an individual (or company) a loss of capital purely based on that someone falsifying their reputation, then it must be prosecuted.

Incitement to Violence. Well, this is very tricky. Very tricky indeed. I think in its simplest case, incitement to violence is when person A, tells person B, to go and kill person C. Its like case 2 with threatening, only person A has not told you he is coming after you to kill you. He has told person B to kill you, and you are oblivious to this fact. In both cases however, there is an intent to kill. (Or intent to perform violence, dectruction of property and violation of your rights). So if it can be proved, that someone has in fact incited others to harm you, (as in threatening), then it should be prosecutable.

That I think, just about covers it. So what it protected speech?

Take “Anything that can come out of your mouth” minus the above, and that is what you have a right to say. And that includes offensive speech, calling people names, comedy, argueing with government, dissenting, etc.

-Ibn

0  0

0  0

“Do not publish – in any way, shape or form – articles or speeches which sow sectarian sedition and discrimination between the citizens of this country and prejudice national unity.”

Anti-discrimination laws may be brought in for very just reasons, but it would not be long, I fear, that such a law could be used against legitimate opposition and differences of opinion. How many prisoners of conscience are there around the world who have been sentenced for “prejudicing national unity” or similarly trumped up charges?

This is a very dangerous part of the pledge, which (as JK has already pointed out) undermines everything you have been arguing for on freedom of the press. To work, we would need a totally independent police, prosecution and judiciary. Are you confident they fit the bill?

0  0

0  0

هيا، جزاك الله ألف خير… فنحن على إنتظار أحرّ من الجمر.

0  0

“Hence, afirmative action/quota policies are not such a bad idea to adopt as a temporary measure until the necessary surrounding legislation/implementation is in place ..”

The US’s affirmative action/quota laws and regulations were set in place as temporary measures about 30-35 years ago… =|

0  0

0  0

:grinnod: :grinnod: :grinnod: :grinnod: :grinnod: :grinnod:

0  0