|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:40 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
You think the US govt would allow them to run a wesbite in the US organising recruitment for a group holding such sympathies and to spread such hatred and then allow them to bring their followers and chant such slogans at the former wtc site every year? Do you?
|
As I understand it, the US government would have no say in the matter. Some person might have a problem with it and sue, which would put it into the courts, then eventually the federal courts would speak. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
They'd be shut down by the patriot act sooner than you could say 'awf to guantanamo with yer' and you know it lol. The US became a fascist state under the bushie regime and you know this too.
| Quote: |
| Government Speech DoctrineThe Government speech Doctrine establishes that the government may censor speech when the speech is its own, leading to a number of contentious decisions on its breadth. |
Hypocritical?
| Quote: |
| As of 2002, the United States was ranked 17th of 167 countries in annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders. "The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings." In the 2006 index the United States fell further to 53rd of 168 countries. "Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of 'national security' to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his 'war on terrorism.' The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media�s right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism. The US improved to rank 48th in 2007, however, and 20th in 2010. "Barack Obama�s election as president and the fact that he has a less hawkish approach than his predecessor have had a lot to do with this."[17] |
Again just pointing out, not everyone thinks the us is as much a bastion of frredom as some posters were suggesting.
Last edited by The Floating World on Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:56 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
For example, in the US we have this radical loony group of Christian fundamentalists from Kansas who have taken it upon themselves to go to the funerals of soldiers killed in Afghanistan and protest the laws about gay people.
Would this be tolerated by the state in the UK? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Amditedly silly comment by me deleted.
Last edited by The Floating World on Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:57 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
You seem to be trying to score political points of some kind. I was only trying to find out comparative laws.
Carry on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, a lot of the Extremist Islamic groups in the UK most likely would never get into the US in the first place as they openly support hammas whom the US govt consider a terrorist group. Thus you don't have groups of extremist muslim sects as they're not allowed in in the first place.
Anyway, I support the banning of the group as per the article in the OP.
It's essentially incitement to hatred, saying our grandparents are burning in hell.
Where do you stand on flag burning yata?
Essentially burning poppies is an affront to the freedoms our grandparents fought for - as I believe is the argument recently supported by the house of reprasentatives re the flag burning act. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Where do you stand on flag burning yata?
|
My stand: meh.
People who are angry about something do their best to choose an emotional target to attack. It's the nature of the beast.
It doesn't bother me.
I try to look past the emotional provocation and assess the case they are trying to make. Sometimes I think they are just jerks. Sometimes I think they have a point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think you can understand my being a bit peeved though.
Imagine, radical muslim groups at the base of ground zero on 9/11 burning the american flag and calling the firefighters 'traitors against the people who will burn in eternal hell.'
Anyway like I said, they would never get in to the us in the first place, which does and doesn't make it a moot issue depedning on your pov.
Britain is having to create the laws due to being too lenient in who they let in in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What's your thing about Oakland? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I can't think of anything more offensive than the Westboro Baptist Church running around the country to the funerals of soldiers, holding up signs about how the US is going to the devil because some states allow gays to marry. We allow it and protect them, as disgusting as they are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I can't think of anything more offensive than the Westboro Baptist Church running around the country to the funerals of soldiers, holding up signs about how the US is going to the devil because some states allow gays to marry. We allow it and protect them, as disgusting as they are. |
It is not the same as demonizing a nationwide public day of mourning for the fallen whom stood up to the nazis. Imo, anyway. Though they are also pond scum.
I don't know I guess I got wound up by the lack of anyone giving a crap in this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
It seems very much the same thing. Fallen soldiers are fallen soldiers.
The question is: Why are they doing it? What is their complaint? Does it have any validity? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
What is perhaps more important, or pertinant, let's say, is the most important yet overlooked by posters in the thread which lead the discussion to be about freedom of speech issues when in fact
| Quote: |
| Tory MP Mike Freer, who called for the Home Secretary to take action against the extremist group after being threatened by them |
Would have been an offense in the US too.
But no, certain posters claim the uk have less freedom of speech, when it's clearly not even the issue. The group was shut down after making threats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NovaKart
Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Location: Iraq
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think this is kind of a pointless argument. If we're talking about known radicals entering the US then yes, if Cat Stevens was denied entry then they probably wouldn't. If they were immigrants or children of immigrants with US citizenship that would be a different matter. I think the US has lighter laws about "hate speech" than the UK, commonwealth countries and Europe. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I'm neutral on the issue. I lean towards more freedom of speech but it's true that hate speech laws do limit fascist groups. I think both sides of the issue have a point but most of us would agree that it's insulting for people who claim the right to live in the UK to insult the country on this day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Floating World wrote: |
UK
| Quote: |
United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.[41] In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. There are many exceptions including incitement,[42] incitement to racial hatred,[43] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[42][44] glorifying terrorism,[45][46] collection or possession of information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[47][48] threatening, abusive, or insulting speech or behavior,[49][50] treason including imagining the death of the monarch,[51] sedition,[51] obscenity, indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[52] defamation,[53] prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[54][55] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,[55] scandalizing the court by criticising or murmuring judges,[55] time, manner, and place restrictions,[56] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising.
UK law imposes a number of limitations on freedom of speech not found in some other jurisdictions. For example, its laws recognise the crimes of incitement to racial hatred and incitement to religious hatred. UK laws on defamation are also considered[by whom?] among the strictest in the Western world, imposing a high burden of proof on the defendant. However, the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 guarantees freedom of speech (within institutions of further education and institutions of higher education) as long as it is within the law (see section 43 at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/61). |
USA
| Quote: |
In the United States freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are several statutory and common law exceptions including obscenity,[73][74] defamation,[73][74] incitement,[74] incitement to riot or imminent lawless action,[73][74] fighting words,[73] information decreed to be related to national security such as classified information,[75] false advertising,[74] perjury,[74] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, copyright, patents, military conduct, and time, place and manner restrictions.
The Newseum's five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.Historically, local communities and governments have sometimes sought to place limits upon speech that was deemed subversive or unpopular. There was a significant struggle for the right to free speech on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley in the 1960s. And, in the period from 1906 to 1916, the Industrial Workers of the World, a working class union, found it necessary to engage in free speech fights intended to secure the right of union organizers to speak freely to wage workers. These free speech campaigns were sometimes quite successful, although participants often put themselves at great risk.[citation needed]
Freedom of speech is also sometimes limited to free speech zones, which can take the form of a wire fence enclosure, barricades, or an alternative venue designed to segregate speakers according to the content of their message. There is much controversy surrounding the creation of these areas � the mere existence of such zones is offensive to some people, who maintain that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution makes the entire country an unrestricted free speech zone.[76] Civil libertarians claim that Free Speech Zones are used as a form of censorship and public relations management to conceal the existence of popular opposition from the mass public and elected officials.[ |
The Department of Homeland Security under the Bush Administration "ha[d] even gone so far as to tell local police departments to regard critics of the War on Terrorism as potential terrorists themselves."[4
It seems they do have a lot of dissimilarities and neither are perfect. |
Lol, huge difference. In the UK they'll put you in the slammer for thought crimes! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
