Why would the government be the ones making that determination?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Three Cheers for Britain's Defense of Freedom
Collapse
X
-
Um...that's a bit of a fallacy of equivocation.
We don't call the governing coalition in the legislature the government, we call the government as a whole--judicial, executive, legislative--the government.
So the courts are part of the government.
What you call the "government" we call the "administration."
Comment
-
Originally posted by regexcellent View PostUm...that's a bit of a fallacy of equivocation.
We don't call the governing coalition in the legislature the government, we call the government as a whole--judicial, executive, legislative--the government.
So the courts are part of the government.
What you call the "government" we call the "administration."
Comment
-
In some states, judges are politicians. They're elected.
At the federal level, they're appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and Congress has the power to impeach them.
They all get their paychecks from the treasury, and that makes them part of the government, and that means their power needs to be severely limited.
Comment
-
Presupposing the Judiciary is part of the government (I don't disagree):
Originally posted by regexcellent View PostIt's not the government's job to decide what's true and false, and then punish people for saying things that are false. If you can't see how that is rife with opportunities for abuse then you're blind or retarded.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Comment
-
Originally posted by regexcellent View PostIn some states, judges are politicians. They're elected.
Originally posted by regexcellent View PostAt the federal level, they're appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and Congress has the power to impeach them.
They all get their paychecks from the treasury, and that makes them part of the government, and that means their power needs to be severely limited.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui View PostPresupposing the Judiciary is part of the government (I don't disagree):
The judiciary does this all the time in libel and slander cases [decide what's true and false and punish people for saying things that are false].
I suspect this whole thing is a bit blown out of proportion, but also not totally unreasonable to be concerned about. Yes, there's nothing wrong with the judiciary punishing newspeople who do harm to others by maliciously writing false statements, or committing other crimes (invasion of privacy etc.). However, establishing an agency to police such things outside of our normal police/judiciary is probably a bad idea. All of the things they do wrong now are already punishable. Creating some sort of bureau of journalist enforcement is asking for trouble - at first they'd just enforce current law, but over time they'd become the Ministry of Truth, because that's how government agencies work - they constantly expand their remit because it's expand or contract, and you never want to contract.<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.
Comment
-
Snoopy speaks truth."Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter
Comment
-
Originally posted by snoopy369 View PostYes, but only when those things cause material harm to another - and only when they are demonstrable facts (this isn't the UK after all).
Originally posted by snoopy369 View PostI suspect this whole thing is a bit blown out of proportion, but also not totally unreasonable to be concerned about. Yes, there's nothing wrong with the judiciary punishing newspeople who do harm to others by maliciously writing false statements, or committing other crimes (invasion of privacy etc.). However, establishing an agency to police such things outside of our normal police/judiciary is probably a bad idea. All of the things they do wrong now are already punishable. Creating some sort of bureau of journalist enforcement is asking for trouble - at first they'd just enforce current law, but over time they'd become the Ministry of Truth, because that's how government agencies work - they constantly expand their remit because it's expand or contract, and you never want to contract.
Comment
-
Ken, in terms of libel/slander, UK is way way way ahead of the US in that department. I'm not talking about other lawsuits, which are not germane.
It's not paranoid, though. Government agencies constantly expand their remit, because they have to - that's how they survive. Give someone a job that takes up 20 hours a week - you think they're going to return the other half of their paycheck? Heck no, they're going to find something to do with those other 20 hours - and if they're trying to make a good career, they'll do something like look into questionable things that aren't reported to them, or whatever - and you end up with the Ministry of Truth. I really don't think it's that farfetched, over time (not talking 5 years here, but in fifty? How many people would've believed in Homeland Security in the 1960s...)<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui View PostThe judiciary does this all the time in libel and slander cases.If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
){ :|:& };:
Comment
Comment