Three Cheers for Britain's Defense of Freedom

[kentonio]

Why would the government be the ones making that determination?

[regexcellent]

Who else would have the power to enforce laws?

[kentonio]

Why would the government have the power to enforce laws? We do have an independent judiciary you know. Don't you?

[regexcellent]

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."

[kentonio]

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."

That's part of why you yanks are crazy though, the idea of putting everything from cops to judges to the president into a single box and then telling everyone they should be afraid of it is a bit mental. Can your politicians tell judges how to rule?

[regexcellent]

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.

[snoopy369]

Sometimes...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Presupposing the Judiciary is part of the government (I don't disagree):

It'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.

The judiciary does this all the time in libel and slander cases.

[kentonio]

In some states, judges are politicians. They're elected.

Yeah, which is ridiculous. I've never understood why the hell you do that.

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.

Actually if you had any sense you'd use them as a counterbalance to the power of the actual government (which I suspect they already are anyway). Seriously, if you lot are blind enough to let the government, judiciary and military all get taken over by brutal oppressors without using any of the myriad peaceful democratic means to stop it, then you kind of deserve to get brutally oppressed.

[snoopy369]

Presupposing 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].

Yes, but only when those things cause material harm to another - and only when they are demonstrable facts (this isn't the UK after all).

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.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Snoopy speaks truth.

[kentonio]

Yes, but only when those things cause material harm to another - and only when they are demonstrable facts (this isn't the UK after all).

You do know that a lot less people get sued over here right?

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.

All true until the last bit which was a bit paranoid.

[snoopy369]

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...)

[Hauldren Collider]

Yeah, which is ridiculous. I've never understood why the hell you do that.

Neither have I. Thankfully I reside in a state where judges are appointed.

[Hauldren Collider]

The judiciary does this all the time in libel and slander cases.

And libel and slander cases are constantly in constitutional limbo. Plus, they are not criminal offenses.