Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Americans who don't really get the First Amendment

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 7
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 template Next
  • #61
    Originally posted by Colon™ View Post
    And then there's the UK, which needed the European Human Rights Convention before it'd instate a law that guarantees freedom of expression.
    If you ignore the Bill of Rights 1689. Yes.
    One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

    Comment

    • #62
      Bill of Rights only provides protection within parliament.
      DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.

      Comment

      • #63
        And common law provided it outside.
        One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

        Comment

        • #64
          Originally posted by Ban Kenobi View Post
          Which is more likely, the #1 high school in the universe hired an idiot to teach AP Government or HC knows less than he thinks he does?
          As Dashi said it is an example of the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon.
          Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

          Comment

          • #65
            Originally posted by kentonio View Post
            What the **** are you talking about? What celebrity?
            A few months ago, we were talking about some english politician's wife who tweeted stuff about some duke or lord or something. She had to pay a fine for her tweet. You defended the UK's draconian slander and libel laws.
            To us, it is the BEAST.

            Comment

            • #66
              Originally posted by Dauphin View Post
              And common law provided it outside.
              It only took (and takes) an act of parliament to curb it.
              DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.

              Comment

              • #67
                But I'll grant that I'd been more correct to say that it took the European Convention before the UK would instate a written law guaranteeing freedom of speech.
                DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.

                Comment

                • #68
                  Originally posted by Sava View Post
                  A few months ago, we were talking about some english politician's wife who tweeted stuff about some duke or lord or something. She had to pay a fine for her tweet. You defended the UK's draconian slander and libel laws.
                  Since when the **** did free speech mean you could accuse someone of being a paedophile?

                  Comment

                  • #69
                    Originally posted by kentonio View Post
                    Since when the **** did free speech mean you could accuse someone of being a paedophile?
                    How else are you supposed to identify pedophiles?
                    Click here if you're having trouble sleeping.
                    "We confess our little faults to persuade people that we have no large ones." - François de La Rochefoucauld

                    Comment

                    • #70
                      Originally posted by kentonio View Post
                      Since when the **** did free speech mean you could accuse someone of being a paedophile?
                      opinions, even wrong ones, are (and should be) protected speech

                      ass
                      To us, it is the BEAST.

                      Comment

                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Sava View Post
                        opinions, even wrong ones, are (and should be) protected speech

                        ass
                        Falsely accusing people of serious crimes has never been protected speech you idiot.

                        Comment

                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Colon™ View Post
                          It only took (and takes) an act of parliament to curb it.

                          I think that goes for just about everything there, doesn't it?
                          (\__/)
                          (='.'=)
                          (")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.

                          Comment

                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Colon™ View Post
                            It only took (and takes) an act of parliament to curb it.
                            The ECHR can be repealed (as applied to UK law) at any time by Parliament. Your point seems to have little to no value.

                            The issue of the Bill of Rights (and other restrictions on the monarchy) is that it demonstrates a tradition of freedoms - including an enumeration of a freedom of speech. The lack of enumeration of a right does not preclude its existence but such a right can be inferred from other similar rights.
                            One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                            Comment

                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Dauphin View Post
                              The ECHR can be repealed (as applied to UK law) at any time by Parliament.
                              Yes, indeed. Don't say a point has little value when you didn't get it.
                              DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.

                              Comment

                              • #75
                                Though repealing a law derived from a treaty does mean the UK would violate the treaty so there's a bit more of a safeguard than before.
                                DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 template Next
                                Working...
                                X