quote:A Swedish court has sentenced Ake Green, a pastor belonging to the Pentecostal movement, to a month in prison, under a law against incitement, after he was found guilty of having offended homosexuals in a sermon, according to Ecumenical News International.
Green had described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society" in a 2003 sermon.
Soren Andersson, the president of the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender rights, said on hearing Green's jail sentence that religious freedom could never be used as a reason to offend people.
Posted by Ender47 (Member # 6670) on :
Hmm...well, this is interesting.
The people of the gay and lesbian communities know that their biggest obstacle lies in the church, and by attacking it first and foremost they can set a precedent that will make others fearful of criticizing homosexuality in religious settings.
I would like to point out, though, that the article about this case was extremely vague. It said that he got sentenced for incitement, so who knows if maybe he was trying to rally the congregation to burn down some gay business offices?
It seemed, from the text, that he was merely offering his opinion (and in his opinion, the opinion of God) about homosexuality. In this case, I think the lawsuit is faulty and should have been dismissed. Under the first amendment, as over- and inappropriately used as it is, everyone has a right to state their beliefs and opinions, which is what he was doing.
I would like to see the transcript from this trial. It seems that there's something being left out.
Posted by Ender47 (Member # 6670) on :
I would like to ammend my last post. Forgive me, it's late, and I mistakenly spoke about the first ammendment in a country that doesn't have it.
In that case...well, I'd need to know more about Swedish law. It still seems an odd and ridiculous case, and that last statement by Mr. Andersson only seemd to confirm it. If the religious official was only sentenced because of his offensive comments...well, I don't think that has any legal grounds. If I walk up to you and call you a faggot, that doesn't mean I can be put in prison.
But maybe in Sweden it does.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Well, gosh, Michael, I think it's perfectly legitimate. Offending someone is an excellent reason to go to prison.
Heh. The World Net Daily doesn't even qualify as a rag. If this story has any bearing in reality, which I doubt; and if the man exists at all, which I doubt; and if he was imprisoned for offending homosexuals, which I doubt; I seriously doubt that piece of crap's telling the full facts behind the story.
Judging by the quality of your long history of posts, I'm not surprised you read it.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
While I would prefer the pastor use biblical quotes to support his point, throwing him in jail is really stupid. And I'd say homosexuality is more the red sequined slippers on the body of humanity.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Me? Um....I feel hungry! What's for breakfast?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
adam, click on your first link - it goes to the same site as michele's link. It's a redirect.
Sheesh, guys, before jumping all over someone for having their facts wrong, check your own.
Lalo, you wouldn't accept, "I don't trust that source" with no research against one of your posts. Why do that here?
That being said, all references to this seem to relate to an ecumenical news site of unknown bias. Anyone got more concrete information?
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In Eddie's defense, that's usually my first reaction to anything from WorldNetDaily until I've seen it independently confirmed from multiple reputable sources. WND's famous for getting pretty much everything wrong -- and, unfortunately, enough conservatives read it that some of its outright tabloid-like lies (like the whole "Saddam Hussein bought Playstation 2s to build missile control systems) get introduced into the popular consciousness. It's a major source of right-wing urban legends, and my personal kneejerk reaction is to ALWAYS hit Snopes when someone cites it as a source.
That said, I'd heard about this case from other sources originally. It seems like an obvious misapplication of principle, along the lines of the "no mentioning Nazis" rule in Germany.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Here's another source. Again, I can't verify beyond this. But most of the facts in the story should be easily verified or proven false, which would tell us something about the credibility of this story.
That's my reaction, too, Tom. But I don't write an insulting post based on my reaction without the courtesy of a google search first.
If half it's stories are lies, then half are true. And 2 seconds of work can give more info on the topic before going off half-cocked.
Dagonee
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
out of context thread, here I come...
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
How do you want me to feel about this? All righteous and angered, ready to commit troops to thwart the evil Swedish government?
I think it's idiotic, similar to the anti-Nazi laws in Germany.
Is there anything else I should feel? It seems to me that you want me to feel something more.
-Bok
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You said it, Jim-me. "Going off half-cocked" is not the turn of phrase I'd use following CT bending over for a spanking.
It's all-cocked or nothing.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Dag started talking about being half-cocked while I was posting... so I'll let you, Bob, decide how to incorporate that statement... you are funnier than I am anyhow.
[ July 08, 2004, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Bok, concerns about exactly this kind of thing have been expressed and quickly dismissed on this forum before. And I've heard justifications for laws such as this, and desire to implement them, here in the U.S. before. I've seen such rules (absent jail time) enforced on college campuses.
I don't doubt that some Hatrack members would support this law. I know several people personally who would. This anecdote, if true, takes a hypothetical and makes it immediately relevant.
Seems like as legitimate a way to start off a conversation about a controversial topic as the "Bush sucks" news article de jure.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You said it, Jim-me. "Going off half-cocked" is not the turn of phrase I'd use following CT bending over for a spanking.
Warning: I have no idea of the content or it's appropriateness.
Dagonee
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
As has been said, can't really comment without knowing more about the sermon. Was he advocating violence or mob action? Was this a one-time deal, or has he a reputation for it? Was he urging condemnation for the acts and love for the people, or was he demanding discrimination?
No one should be imprisoned for an opinion.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Although, more to the subject at hand, why did you link to an artical that seems to be talking about Canada's hate legislation when this happened in Sweden, Dags?
Or did I miss something when I skimmed the article?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Dag, that may be true, but when I'm asked how do I "feel", as opposed to "think", and the thread starter doesn't give any sort of statement of their own opinion, I'm left feeling a bit non-plussed, a little bit as if this is just a trap so that michael can catch someone making an in-depth response to it, and construe some part of it as being soft, or proof that liberals hate America, or that this is exactly what the "PC Police" want to do in America.
The opening post is as manipulative as anything Lalo might write, and just as I don't support him in those cases, I'm not going to play michael's game.
However, I will be happy to be proven wrong at any point; I've had similar initial impressions for other Hatrackers that I've come to respect and enjoy and take seriously. I'm willing to be wrong, but is michael?
-Bok
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
That said, a news site that's half wrong loses credibility even for the stories that are accurate. As soon as sloppy reporting or slanted articles appear, the accuracy of all of their stories comes into question and reading them becomes a constant trial where you have to, basically, report the story yourself all over again just to find the truth.
News sites don't get much leeway from me. Screw up enough times and I won't trust anything you say, I'll just go somewhere else.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
I somehow doubt that we are anywhere near where Sweden is with anti-discrimination lawsuits. Hell, your same links to Salt Lake City Tribune pointed to an article more relevant...such as the LDS church supporting Constitutional Amendments at state and national level to ban gay marriages. The bigger concern in my book is quite the opposite.
My reaction to this article on its face value? Agreed...the government is overstepping what I think are its boundaries in legislating morality. But I also think the same thing in this country where the same sort of thing is being done in the other direction. Point? Government has no business legislating religious views. Period.
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Although, more to the subject at hand, why did you link to an artical that seems to be talking about Canada's hate legislation when this happened in Sweden, Dags?
Or did I miss something when I skimmed the article?
It mentions the Sweden incident.
quote:Was he advocating violence or mob action? Was this a one-time deal, or has he a reputation for it? Was he urging condemnation for the acts and love for the people, or was he demanding discrimination?
Only the first question has any relvance as to whether he deserves jail time.
Maybe you all haven't encountered it directly, but as someone who has seen and fought state-sponsored denial of access to public forums based on religious viewpoints expressed there and seen countless attempts to exclude religious-inspired viewpoints from the public square, this kind of thing scares me.
As to the worldnews.net, as soon as someone questioned the source, Michaele posted additional sources. Doing so had him basically accused of spoofing a site, erroneously.
A lot.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Other countries have enacted similar "good neighbor" laws -> New Zealand, I believe, among others.
As for sentencing him to jail - he knew the risks when he decided to preach hate in a public forum, particularly when local laws actively discourage the public display of such opinions.
Would you feel better if he had targeted Jews, or Hispanics, or another group?
-Trevor
Edited: For clarity
[ July 08, 2004, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: Maybe you all haven't encountered it directly, but as someone who has seen and fought state-sponsored denial of access to public forums based on religious viewpoints expressed there and seen countless attempts to exclude religious-inspired viewpoints from the public square, this kind of thing scares me.
Can you share some stories? I am curious. People in the US seem to wear their religion on their sleeves more than just about any country outside of the Middle East. What does it look like from your experience?
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As for sentencing him to jail - he knew the risks when he decided to preach hate in a public forum, particularly when local laws actively discourage such opinions.
So free speech is only for things you find acceptable, is that it?
"Knowing the risks" doesn't excuse censorship.
quote:Would you feel better if he had targeted Jews, or Hispanics, or another group?
What the hell does that have to do with anything?
Dagonee
[ July 08, 2004, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Only the first question has any relvance as to whether he deserves jail time.
I chose my questions carefully.
Was he advocating violence or mob action? This is the important one, certainly.
Was this a one-time deal, or has he a reputation for it? Had he preached a single sermon, even one urging action against homosexuals, I wouldn't demand jail time. Maybe a warning? Hey, knock it off? If he's been in the pulpit every week demanding action against homosexuals (as opposed to action against homosexuality, understand), there is more cause to stop him, especially if he's been warned before.
Was he urging condemnation for the acts and love for the people, or was he calling for discrimination? He doesn't have to be advocating violence to be breaking the law. He could have been suggesting that people refuse to serve homosexuals, or rent to them, or deal with them equally. If Sweden has anti-discrimination laws that would also be inciting people to break the law.
[ July 08, 2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
In the interest of giving an accurate basis for any criticism of the judgement, here is my translation of the law in question:
BrB § 16:8 Anyone who in speech or by other means of communication that gets spread threaten or express contempt [alt. trans. disrespect, disdain] for an ethnic group or another such group of persons by referring to race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation, shall be sentenced for incitement against ethnic group [as you see this is not the most appropriate trans. but I don't know any exact equivalent] to imprisonment for the maximum of two years or, if the crime is insignificant, get fined.
If the crime is sever the sentence shall be imprisonment for at least six month with a maximum of four years. When judging if the crime is sever account shall especially be taken of whether the communication had a particularly threatening or offensive content and had been disseminated to a great number of persons in a way calculated to generate considerable attention.
I haven't time to comment in detail on the law or the judgement; suffice to say that this is one of Sweden's laws of which I'm not particularly proud, that the present judgement is from a district court and may get overturned (although that is by no means certain) and that despite the seemingly broad scope of the statute it's fortunately not invoked very often.
[ July 08, 2004, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Whether I agree or disagree with his message is irrelevant. The fact is, the Swiss authorities disagreed with his message and apparently they don't extend a unilateral freedom of expression.
As to whether I believe censorship is inherently wrong - no, I don't. I believe it needs to be applied carefully as the intended results can backfire drastically, but I don't hold it as inherently wrong.
As for the other groups - if he had preached against Hispanics or Asians or another group, would it have sparked the same degree of outrage?
From you, I assume it would as your arguments center around personal freedom issues. I will, however, point out that not everybody is as open-minded when it comes to minority groups.
"Jag är beredd att gå i fängelse” För första gången anmäls en pastor för att ha hetsat mot homosexuella"
and...
"För första gången sedan den nya homohetslagen trädde i kraft anmäls en pastor för att ha hetsat mot homosexuella i sin predikan. Pingstpastor Åke Green på Öland tar dock saken med ro. – Principiellt är det bra att lagen nu testas, säger Christine Gilljam, utvecklingsdirektör hos HomO"
Okay Lalo?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Can you share some stories? I am curious.
For one, there's my own case: Rosenberger v. University of Virginia. I used to have this stuff off the top of my head, but I'd have to do research for others. I do remember the school trying to sanction someone who was preaching that homosexual actions were sinful while actually paying for a speaker whose thesis was that not accepting homosexuality amounted to a mental illness.
quote:People in the US seem to wear their religion on their sleeves more than just about any country outside of the Middle East. What does it look like from your experience?
The knee-jerk reaction that any viewpoint informed by religious beliefs is suspect is ubiquitous in this society.
Dagonee
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: I do remember the school trying to sanction someone who was preaching that homosexual actions were sinful while actually paying for a speaker whose thesis was that not accepting homosexuality amounted to a mental illness.
Interesting. I think the school is silly for not allowing a forum where two sides to a topic can be discussed. Though, to be fair, how can one "discuss" the ineffable points of religion? What would have been better is someone to counter the thesis that be homophobic equates to mental illness vs. a relgious counter. They are two different points of view and barely related. Is it the seeming relationship between the topics that made the case? What if there was a guy speaking on drug addictionand outside of this paid event was a guy preaching that homosexuality was a sin. Would the university have the right to tell the guy to can it?
What if the topics were related but not about homosexuality? What if the school paid a speaker to come talk about racism towards Blacks and its harmful effects on society and another person wanted to preach outside that their religion sees Black people as pagans and evil? Would his speech be protected, too? Would the CIR defend the one preaching religious intolerance towards black folk? Just curious.
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The events weren't simultaneous, although both occurred during gay pride week. The preacher was run off from a public area that a lot of people used to harangue the crowds passing by. Someone complained about him, and and he was kicked off.
The other speech happened sometime later in the week.
quote:What if the topics were related but not about homosexuality? What if the school paid a speaker to come talk about racism towards Blacks and its harmful effects on society and another person wanted to preach outside that their religion sees Black people as pagans and evil? Would his speech be protected, too? Would the CIR defend the one preaching religious intolerance towards black folk? Just curious.
CIR probably would defend him (although there was no litigation about this incident). I'm not affiliated with them except for the fact they represented us in the magazine lawsuit.
As for me, I'm pretty close to being a free speech absolutist. Not that the government can't make reasonable regulations about where speech occurs, but rather that they can't make decisions about who can speak in limited or open public forums based on the content of the speech, allowing for the obvious "fire in a crowded theater" exceptions.
Dagonee
[ July 08, 2004, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The knee-jerk goes both ways, Dagonee. The Bush administration recently put forward a judicial nominee whose stated position was that women should be subordinate to their husbands. In the Senate reaction was about split between people being offended and people being offended that people were offended by something present in the Bible.
He had also written a letter a while back saying(in none too polite terms) that the chance of a rape victim getting pregnant was slim to none, and thus she should never have access to an abortion in such circumstances. He later apologized for that letter.
He was confirmed by 51 votes, of course.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:The knee-jerk reaction that any viewpoint informed by religious beliefs is suspect is ubiquitous in this society.
Seeing the effects of how religious viewpoints currently and in the past effect the world, I don't think this is an unreasonable reaction. I know, I know that church organizations have done amazing things to support the fabric of society but also very little can divide a culture like religious beliefs, either.
fil
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, Dagonee, while I disagree in general on a school having such a dichotomy, there's a major difference between a speaker coming with the intent to rile up and denigrate students, and another coming by to likely preach to the choir. Even if both their messages should be equally protected by an institution that values free speech, both their intentions and actions need not be, necessarily.
I know my former university would kick off anyone yelling at the students, no matter what the subject matter.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I do remember the school trying to sanction someone who was preaching that homosexual actions were sinful while actually paying for a speaker whose thesis was that not accepting homosexuality amounted to a mental illness.
Again, I don't have all the facts, but the school could probably make a case that one was religious and the other medical in nature. Splitting hairs, granted, but if the school has made it a practice to block people from preaching (your word) then this juxtaposition is just a bad coincidence. If they blocked a person whose thesis was that homosexuality was a mental illness and still allowed the other, or if they've allowed other religious preaching to go on in the past, then there's more of a case.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: The events weren't simultaneous, although both occurred during gay pride week. The preacher was run off from a public area that a lot of people used to harangue the crowds passing by. Someone complained about him, and and he was kicked off.
So he was run off by citizens who were sick of him? I mean, they used the uniersity authority to do the actual kicking but the complaint came from people near by? So it sounds like if people around him didn't complain, he could still be there preaching away? Were the people who complained a part of the suit?
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And if they kicked off "anyone" yelling at the students it might be OK. But they didn't kick off anti-Apartheid activists, or pro-choice activists, or any number of other people doing the exact same thing except for the content of the speech.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I don't suppose either of the two activist groups were actively denigrating or insulting nearby pedestrians?
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So he was run off by citizens who were sick of him? I mean, they used the uniersity authority to do the actual kicking but the complaint came from people near by? So it sounds like if people around him didn't complain, he could still be there preaching away? Were the people who complained a part of the suit?
The school used their official authority to do it. And there was no law suit about this incident - the lawsuit was about UVA denyiong funding to one magazine out of 15 because of its content.
quote:The knee-jerk goes both ways, Dagonee.
Sure. One doesn't excuse the other.
quote:Again, I don't have all the facts, but the school could probably make a case that one was religious and the other medical in nature. Splitting hairs, granted, but if the school has made it a practice to block people from preaching (your word) then this juxtaposition is just a bad coincidence. If they blocked a person whose thesis was that homosexuality was a mental illness and still allowed the other, or if they've allowed other religious preaching to go on in the past, then there's more of a case.
If a publicly owned forum is generally made available for people to speak from, they can't ban a speaker based on the content. This is textbook. Religious speech is not constitutionally disadvantaged speech. Even if they hadn't allowed other "religious preaching" to take place (which they did allow), it would still be unconstitutional.
Dagonee
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Disregard my last post, more details were posted since I started writing it.
Again, can't really say, I wasn't there. For me it would depend on how much of a disturbance was being caused, not just yelling - were the anti-Aparthied people declaiming during a Klan rally? Were the pro-choice people getting into fights with the people at a Preserve Life gathering? You said this was during Gay Pride week...
In each case the effort is to preserve peace, not necessarily to censor thought. A person can say the exact same thing in three different places with three different audiences and find cheering agreement, total indifference, or an angry mob. If actions must be taken to prevent the angry mob, is it censorship or crowd control?
[ July 08, 2004, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't suppose either of the two activist groups were actively denigrating or insulting nearby pedestrians?
-Trevor
No, he wasn't. He was preaching, mostly reading scripture.
Dagonee
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I should state that, from what you've said, I would have let him preach.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Speaking of religious preachers, are there any other students on here from the mid-west? We had an annual tradition of publicly getting hollered at by Brother Jed and Sister Cindy. They would come to campus preach just outside the commons and teach about the evils of for-ni-ca-tion and how we were all going to hell. Just about every university campus in a few states around Ohio knew him. He was very popular. People would gather around and holler back and it was all in good fun. There was a theory that he was a paid performance artist that came to town just to get people an outlet to yell at.
Also, our state campus was the site of many Mormon youth walking about with Bibles and smiles. Met my first missionary this way.
I bring this up because it seems even on a state campus, religious expression is okay but maybe using better judgement as to when and where would be more appropriate. Just a thought.
fil
[ July 08, 2004, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There were no crowd control issues. Although such excuses have been used to keep conservative speakers from speaking at many colleges. The activists barge in, shout slogans, and then the speach is cancelled due to "safety" issues. It's been done again and again, although I still don't have time to post links on it.
Sometimes crowds have to be dispersed for safety reasons. This was not the case in this situation - no police were involved at all.
I had someone (a school official) who gave money to the Democratic candidate for governor try to use his school authority to stop me from leafleting at a football game. That was more of a southern corruption thing than systematic censorship, since he was soundly rebuked. But public universities, which should respect free speech more than any institution, are hotbeds of censorship.
Dagonee
Edit: Missed this:
quote:I should state that, from what you've said, I would have let him preach.
Thanks.
[ July 08, 2004, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Dag, I am still wondering if you would defend someone preaching about something other than the sins of homosexuality. Let's take a different example, since the preacher was just reading out of the Bible.
Let's say in Women's Health Week there is a speaker talking about, oh, abuse towards women and the people that do it are mentally ill (and criminals to boot). Now, outside in the public space during these festivities a person is preaching about how women need to serve the needs of men, how they shouldn't do this or that, and so on. There is enough in the Bible to read about the role of women that are counter to today's more enlightened views on gender equality. Would a blatantly mysogonistic preacher have the same defense from the CIR as the blatant homophobic preacher? Just curious.
For the record, I agree...the homophobic preacher should have been able to preach all he liked.
fil
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Unless his scripture choices were overtly offensive, similar to "the right to keep slaves" during African History month, I'd say he should have been allowed to preach.
At the very least, if anyone had complained about the anti-Apartheid or Pro-Choice groups, they should have been removed as well.
Based on the information provided here, anyway.
I'm curious as to what scripture he was preaching.
-Trevor
Edit: On a completely unrelated note, just got visited by my first group of LDS door-knockers.
[ July 08, 2004, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
That's funny Dag - I'd actually argue the other way.
Because public institutions have so many different groups to avoid offending, I would think censorship would be more commonplace.
As opposed to private schools that don't have to toe the government line nearly as much and don't tend to have the same diversity in their student body. Generally speaking.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
fil, quite simply, if it's a place where people are generally allowed to speak out, then ANYONE should be allowed to preach about ANYTHING. Insulting or not, gross or not, blasphemous or not.
For the record, he had a "Pope is anti-christ" spiel as well, so it's not like I supported the guy's content.
quote:I'm curious as to what scripture he was preaching.
Oh, it was definitely more of the "abomination" and less of the "love thy neighbor" sections of the Bible. I found it reprehensible.
The articles in the paper were of the opinion that stating that anyone's "lifestyle" is sinful was inappropriate speech. This is exactly the problem I have with the Swedish law. (We've verified that, just not this guy being in jail).
Dagonee
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Colleges do seem to be heavier on the modulated speech side, and this saddens me like you wouldn't believe. This is when our kids should be exposed to as many things as possible, this is when nothing should be wrong to talk about, nothing too edgy or unpopular to discuss.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That's funny Dag - I'd actually argue the other way.
Because public institutions have so many different groups to avoid offending, I would think censorship would be more commonplace.
There's no right to not be offended. Freedom of speech starts with the supposition that some speech will offend someone. Otherwise free speech wouldn't be needed.
If someone says something offensive, the correct response is more speech challenging it, not less.
quote:As opposed to private schools that don't have to toe the government line nearly as much and don't tend to have the same diversity in their student body. Generally speaking.
If your concern is offense, then this might be the case. If your concern is freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, it's not. There's no requirement to provide people the means to speak. What there is a requirement for is that government not base the provision of a benefit on the content of someone's speech.
Dagonee
[ July 08, 2004, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Colleges do seem to be heavier on the modulated speech side, and this saddens me like you wouldn't believe. This is when our kids should be exposed to as many things as possible, this is when nothing should be wrong to talk about, nothing too edgy or unpopular to discuss.
Exactly. That's why even though I think private schools should have more rights to regulate speech, they should seldom exercise that right. I'm really torn on the Georgetown/NAACP feud right now, for example.
Dagonee Gee, can you tell I have strong feelings on this issue?
[ July 08, 2004, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Dag - you and I are just going to disagree on some fundamental points. I would still have booted the preacher because his speech was inflamatory and denigrating to nearby pedestrians.
I do not hold his right to speak his mind supreme in all circumstances and in all locations.
Although, in the spirit of a University, it would be at least proper to open a specific area that allowed any form of lecture, speech or public discourse. As a former student, I'd rather it not be somewhere I would have to pass through, but still...
Chris - Unfortunately, universities and a large portion of the student bodies get caught between two highly polarized sides of any given debate. Rather than trying to clean up after the fact, the schools are attempting to head off the impending disaster.
-Trevor
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, if a college has free speech zones, they should be free speech zones.
My (private) university had an interesting approach. Anyone just standing around yelling at the students would get kicked off, regardless of subject matter.
The student government could give any student group funding to bring in any speaker we would approve -- if the person didn't require an honorarium, we'd foot the other costs and arrange for a space, regardless of speaker. For speakers requiring an honorarium, we'd foot the honorarium and costs if it was within normal limits of an honorarium for anticipated demand (usually 2 to 10 thousand dollars), the speaker had some decent credentials on the subject they would be speaking on, and we had money left allocated for speakers/weren't spending too much money on one subject/side (that is, 5 speakers in a row on one side of an issue was considered way overboard). There was at least a hundred thousand put towards speakers every year, and we got a lot of great people.
In fact, one group that brought in the best speakers was the Conservative Leadership Association (this is a "liberals who are going to be conservatives in the future" campus, mainly).
There was also another option, so long as a student group sponsored them and there were still tables available for that day anybody could have a table talking about whatever they wanted, provided they weren't overly graphic and didn't chase down students (this was a sit at your table and talk about/sell what you have arrangement, not an available space to talk to a larger crowd) on our main thoroughfare through the student center.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Trevor, did you really just say that universities should try to prevent debate by students on the controversial issues of the age?
What the hell is a university for, then?
And if you're that worried about people's feelings, would you support anti-blasphemy laws? No more using the name of the man a large percentage of people in this country consider to be their savior as a swear word?
Dagonee
[ July 08, 2004, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I forget - you were in support of telemarketers and spammers, right?
-Trevor
Edit: Debate? Go for it. Require students to participate by having the interested parties set up shop in major walkways and center courtyards? No.
As for what school is - it's a place to get a piece of paper so you can make more money when you get a job. As sad as that may be, it's entirely too common in American institutions.
As for anti-blasphemy laws - probably not. Offending generally versus insulting specifically is the defining line. Howard Stern offends me to no end. That doesn't mean he should have been taken off the air - I can (and do) refuse to listen to radio stations playing his show.
Telling me I'm going to Hell because I don't attend your church and I should repent and see the error of my ways is another matter entirely.
[ July 08, 2004, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
fugu, your school's approach sounds fair, although I think something's been lost from American life with the death of the soapbox.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I forget - you were in support of telemarketers and spammers, right?
Nope - both involve co-opting private resources to deliver their messages, which I don't support.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Or America's willingness to listen to the soapbox, perhaps.
-Trevor
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and I forgot to mention that to be a student group that can bring in speakers (which all student groups can do) requires only a three or four students.
Now, to be a student group that can get other kinds of funding is significantly more rigorous, but we like our tradition of many varied speakers.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sounds similar to UVA's requirements, although receiving funding isn't that hard.
When the school refused to fund our magazine, we started a group to bring in speakers. The school didn't pay honoraria, but it paid for advertisement for events.
We bought ads in our magazine with those funds. It was perfectly legal - they specifically allowed ads to be purchased in non-funded publications.
Fliers for one of our speakers made the Roanoke head of Planned Parenthood call me and threaten to sue me. They backed down pretty quickly when they realized we had one of the leading first amendment lawyers in the country already working on our case.
I was quite the troublemaker in school.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Dag - you don't have to pick up the phone or open the email.
I do (or did) have to walk through the hallways and courtyards to get to class.
Which makes me question the university as to why I'm paying money to be besieged by groups I'm not interested in, never mind ones mounting a personal assault on me.
-Trevor
Edit: Troublemaker? You? Naaaah. Wouldn't believe it for a second.
[ July 08, 2004, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But even ringing the phone uses my resources - I can't receive another call at that time. And unopened email taxes my servers, bandwidth, and computer as much as opened email.
I liken it to being allowed to put a no soliciting sign on my front door.
If you're banning all speakers in oublic walkways, fine. If you're banning based on content, then there's a problem.
Except on public land, where you can't even ban speakers on public walkways (although you can make them keep moving). And if it's a place where people can stand or sit still outside, they don't even have to keep moving.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Heh, by significantly more rigorous, I mean requiring such arcane things as a (short) history of doing things, a plan for doing things in the future, and a budget describing what non-frivolous (generally speaking, no t-shirts) things the money might be spent on. It doesn't even have to be a good budget to get approved as a funded group, but it does have to be a pretty decent budget to actually get the money .
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, sounds exactly like our system, then. Ours was student-run, although Student Council generally danced to the Administration's tune on funding issues.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Just who is Michaele8? His profile when I checked this morning was "prof." in "Sweden". I guess I'll go back to ignoring him. I'm getting an OSC-fan vibe: that is, someone who is pretending to be right wing to ultimately discredit the positions of Orson Scott Card.
Umm, yeah. His nauvoo profile says he is a teacher in Oregon. I don't know which is true, but there it is.
TREVOR: I'm just editing my post so it doesn't bump the thread. Most of the regular posters here are just what they seem to be. OSC has some very strong opinions, and I think sometimes they get rereported in left activist media and those types come in here to run interference. There is nothing wrong with being on the left and liberal. Michaele8 may just be a liar, and not necessarily running interference.
[ July 08, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Do you get a lot of that in this forum?
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The reason I hang out here is because it happens surprisingly seldom. Since I've been here, there's been a couple. One posts fairly regularly and has been around a long time, but only about half his stuff is trollish.
Micheale8 is new, and there's a lot of speculation about him. I think he's less troll and more immature. He doesn't develop his ideas well, just states them. He uses a lot of conservative cliches as well. But the troll people may be right.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Actually, I believe he used to be in Sweden and then came to America. Or vice versa. Or maybe there were multiple movings. But I do recall it occuring. That is to say, he has explained it before.
And I kind of like him because he set up that awesome abortion thread that CT went all post-happy in that made laugh more than I have on Hatrack in a while.
I'm just sayin'.
Edit for clarity.
[ July 08, 2004, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I do know Michaele8's approximate age from other conversations, and I'm not willing to write this off as immaturity. I'll just say he is too old for the mid 30's clique and leave it at that.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: In each case the effort is to preserve peace, not necessarily to censor thought.
To what extent should we go to preserve peace?
Should a person be censored if they are delibrately causing an angry mob?
What if a couple of sick-os in the crowd get all riled up and hurt someone after a speech that's generally not inflammatory?
What if two people get into a fistfight because they disagree on the views expressed?
What if someone calls somebody a dirty name and hurts his feelings?
What if passers-by don't like what they're hearing and are offended, then are curt to people they meet later because they're upset?
Each is an example of peace being disrupted, but where do you draw the line? When is it okay to ban someone from expressing his views? When do we say that the people causing the violence are responsible for their own actions, regardless of what they may have listened to?
I'd say that someone with clout or popularity has more personal responsibility to what they encourage others to do. I don't know if it's possible or ethical to enforce that.
Edit: I didn't realize this topic had a second page when I wrote this. Forgive me if it's been covered or doesn't apply now.
[ July 08, 2004, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Our was student run, and we generally liked twitting the administration when we felt they were wrong .
Of course, this is partly because the school charter gave our student body a lot of powers they don't get at other schools. The activity fee goes straight to the student government and is one percent of tuition, for instance, which makes us wealthier (in the sense of having more disposable income, even after taking care of necessary expenses such as student group funding) than most of the departments and divisions of the school, thus making us more powerful (in the sense of having more leverage) than them. Heck, if our tuition growth rate keeps up, in a couple of years the student government will get over $2 million before expenses.
<edit>oh, and the student body is about 6000 people</edit>
Plus, the student government gets to make policy on a number of things, and in fact what things we get to make policy on is just about limited to what we can convince people we can make policy on -- since the student body approves the student government's consitution.
Major academic policy changes must also be passed by the student body, and there are a few other things.
(oh, we also had a seed fund for student groups that really needed some funding to do something when first starting out).
[ July 08, 2004, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
To what extent should we go to preserve peace?
Should a person be censored if they are delibrately causing an angry mob? That person should be urged to be less inflammatory. If that wasn't possible, that person should be urged to move elsewhere, possibly to private property.
What if a couple of sick-os in the crowd get all riled up and hurt someone after a speech that's generally not inflammatory? Then the sickos are the ones being inflammatory and they're the ones that should be addressed.
What if two people get into a fistfight because they disagree on the views expressed? Same as above.
What if someone calls somebody a dirty name and hurts his feelings? Life is hard. They'll have to deal.
What if passers-by don't like what they're hearing and are offended, then are curt to people they meet later because they're upset? See above.
Each is an example of peace being disrupted, but where do you draw the line? When is it okay to ban someone from expressing his views? When do we say that the people causing the violence are responsible for their own actions, regardless of what they may have listened to?
When the person expressing his or her views is urging the audience to violate law, or when the speaker is encouraging violence amongst the audience. Not if violence is occuring regardless, then it's the violent person's fault. I don't care if someone wants to stand up and rail about the evils of tooth decay, even if the audience gets worked up. I do care if someone stands up and demands that the audience go out and beat up Coca Cola salespeople.
The person who commits the act is totally at fault and responsible, no matter what anyone told him to do. This is true. But if a speaker continues to tell people to break the law and they do, even if he holds no legal culpability for their actions, it's still in the public's interest to move his message elsewhere.
Or, to put it a different way, say a teenage kid has convinced every other kid in his neighborhood to steal cigarettes and smoke 'em. The other kids are completely responsible for their actions, but I'd still go have a word with him.
[ July 08, 2004, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I agree with you, Chris. I'm just wondering if there's ever a point at which someone should be stopped from speaking in a public place. My gut says "No" but I might personally beat the crap out of someone who's trying to get people I care about hurt. I'd go to jail, but at least I didn't hinder their free speech.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What I like about that, Chris, is your philosophy that culpability is not a zero sum game. Saying person X is 100% for their actions does not make the instigator any less culpable. Nor does saying the instigator is at fault make the perpetrators less culpable.
When you talk about not allowing people to advocate breaking the law, do you mean even in non-violent situations? What if the law is fuzzy or outright immoral (I'm thinking of the fugitive slave law, for instance)? Should advocating peaceful civil disobedience be allowed (although I have a problem with people advocating it and not being on the front lines when it goes down)?
Does the advocacy have to be specific and immediate ("Go beat up that person right now") or can it be more general ("People of type X should be beaten")? What about advocacy of illegal, non-criminal acts (such as job discrimination)?
These are all asked out of genuine curiosity.
Dagonee
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
It would seem to depend on if the person encouraged is a child or otherwise not as responsible for their actions.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Humans are social creatures and we have an unfortunate habit of adopting a pack mentality.
Whether or not someone instigated the scenario might mitigate or lessen the responsibility of the actual participants, but it should not absolve them of guilt.
Not that "Just say No" ever really worked, but it's a nice, cherished dream of denial I choose to shroud myself in.
-Trevor
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Just wondering if there is anyone here who would like to see the same kinds of laws Sweden has adopted here in the USA.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Are you kidding, Trevor? If it weren't for Max Headroom, I'd be crack-smokin' drug dealer by now.
------
Oooh! ME!
[ July 08, 2004, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Hey, Canada's already got 'em and what's the point of legal redundancy?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
It would never happen Mike - or Michelle? Although as social standards change, such things may become commonplace. Good fences make good neighbors and so on.
The concept of free speech is so ingrained in the consciousness of America that such a law, as well-intentioned as it may be, would be brought down very quickly.
And such laws, while designed with the best of intentions, do not necessarily serve the public interest.
I'm sure Dag will have a more vocal and reasonable list of the failings inherent, but for my part - a certain amount of regulation is required for an orderly society. Despite what anarchists may choose to believe.
But at the same time, government should be limited in its ability to regulate what people do or say or think or feel.
Hah. Government should maintain the lowest common denominator and let the rest sort itself out? That was the principle of the US government - to maintain the basic functionality without becoming an oppressive, dominating force?
Feh. I don't know. Instinctively, I would not like to see such laws because frankly, I like to know where my enemies are and when they're coming. As for the more intelligent, reasonable answer - I don't know.
-Trevor
Edit: How's that for a rambling rant?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: The concept of free speech is so ingrained in the consciousness of America that such a law, as well-intentioned as it may be, would be brought down very quickly
Maybe Bush should make a new policy.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Speaking of Just Say No, Trevor, I've been wondering if maybe the government should just hand out free drugs to those that want them. Maybe unlimited free crack would clear out the peer-following sheep from the gene pool.
Yeah, I'm being sarcastic, but not necessarily disagreeing with you. I'm at a loss as to what kind of campaign would do any good at all in reducing drug use. It seems those of us who listen to ads aren't interested in drugs anyway.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Heh.
It is difficult to go against the grain and defy your peer group.
Most adults find it difficult to do, never mind teens.
That being said, how many parents bother to take their kids aside and explain the ramifications of drugs?
"Because I said so" doesn't really hold water with teens, especially ones who question authority and want to be radical. However, explaining the concept of addiction and what people say versus the reality, etc. How many people believed notions like, "you can never get pregnant the first time?"
Just because you think you can fly doesn't mean gravity won't yank your rump back down.
-Trevor
Edited for word choice and mindful that this is a family forum. Of sorts.
Edit 2: While government should take steps to provide information, it cannot take the place of good parenting. What is "government" to a teenager? "Da Man?"
Government can and does enact social sanctions against people who decide to break the law, but few people approve of government becoming more proactive in regulating lives in an Orwellian fashion. We can dictate what is bad in raising a child, for example, but we cannot dictate what is good.
Edit 3: I'm in a mood, ignore me.
[ July 08, 2004, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The prime importance of free speech stems from the representational reinforcement theory of rights. Our governments have general police power which was historically unlimited. However, since our government is mostly responsible to the political process, it must be prevented from interfering with the political process. Otherwise the current government can lock itself in. We see this now with redistricting, which is one of the biggest threats to representational government around.
If speech could be limited based on the whims of the political branches, then those branches could turn our representational system into a self-perpetuating government accountable to no one.
Sure, not all speech is political. But how on earth do you decide. Almost everything can be the subject of legislation, so almost everything needs to be in the realm of protected speech.
Dagonee P.S., your idea of wanting to know who the enemy is is a very good reason to support free speech.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Dagonee, my answer to those and, frankly, just about any question involving humans is: it depends. I can't offer a hard-and-fast rule because the dynamic changes in every situation. A person calmly telling a laughing audience that someone oughtta burn down the local stadium is not the same as a person shouting "let's go get them [racial slur of your choice]s!" and neither is the same as a quiet, impassioned plea for civil disobedience that results in massive social change. It depends.
On the speaker. On the subject, and how it's presented. On the audience and their reactions. On the environment and timing and significance of the event. On the atmosphere -- political, religious, social, emotional, or whatever -- of the times.
I am against most limitations of free speech. I am also against someone being a damn idiot and talking a lot of other damn idiots into doing something stupid.
[ July 08, 2004, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Fair enough. Those are the types nitty-gritty questions that made me want to go to law school. Every single free speech case requires answering them, even if to say, "We're not sure where the line is, but this case is well past it (or doesn't approach it)." That's how the majority of law gets made in this country.
I could bat around hypotheticals on this subject all night, but I realize many don't share my enthusiasm for it.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
"I can't define porn, but I know it when I see it."
-Trevor
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Does that mean you're quoting yourself?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yep - but since that statement's been made, there have been a lot of cases that have refined the definition. Adn those areas that still have lines so fuzzy as to be clouds are the areas where we're practically guaranteed more litigation on fundamental issues.
I know people know about judicial review and how that makes judges powerful, but I don't think most people appreciate how truly sweeping their interpretive power is.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Actually, I'm paraphrasing a quote from a Justice so yes - the paraphrase is indeed my own quote.
-Trevor
Edit: For a better smiley selection.
[ July 08, 2004, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
And it's worth noting that since that statement, the definition of obscenity has been changed to acknowledge the different factors that help define it, "obscenity" and "pornography" both being relative.
See? "It depends." I want it on my statue.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If you do, I'll tag "on what?" on the statue. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm so glad I live in a country where every word's meaning is different for every person and no one can be tagged by what they say or do because everything is relative and based on semantics.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
PSI, if you're trying to bug me it takes a lot more than that.
I shoot and kill someone. Should I go to jail?
Does it matter if I did on purpose or by accident? Does it matter if I was defending myself? Does it matter if I was defending someone else? Does it matter if I was clear-headed or not? Does it matter if I did it as part of a military mission? Does it matter if I meant to wound and missed?
Definitions are relative in law. They damn well better stay that way. The meanings aren't based on semantics, they're based on conditions that can affect how that action should be judged.
[ July 08, 2004, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm not trying to bug you Chris, and it's not aimed at you. It's aimed at the world in general. I guess I should have put /rant afterwards.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Fair enough, thanks. You just came too close to triggering my own rant on mandatory sentencing and similar "conditions make no difference" restrictions.
[ July 08, 2004, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I shoot and kill someone. Should I go to jail? It depends.
Does it matter if I did on purpose or by accident? Yes - although doing it on accident can still result in significant jail time, even in a murder 2 conviction under the MPC. Does it matter if I was defending myself? Yes - justification. Does it matter if I was defending someone else? Yes - justification. Does it matter if I was clear-headed or not? Yes - mitigation and can reduce the charge to manslaughter. Does it matter if I did it as part of a military mission? Yes - justification. Does it matter if I meant to wound and missed? No - presumed intent to kill when deadly force is intentionally applied. Incidentally, it also doesn't matter if you were trying to shoot someone else and killed the wrong person.
That was fun. Got any more?
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You just came too close to triggering my own rant on mandatory sentencing and similar "conditions make no difference" restrictions.
The tradeoff is between uniformity of sentencing and ability for judicial discretion. I have no idea where the happy medium is, but both extremes are terribly unjust.
Dagonee
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Chris- I'm not an advocate for mandatory sentencing. There just never seems to be a middle ground. It's one thing for people to consider the conditions when deciding about a person's guilt. It's another when they push and push until there's no way a person can get punished for what they did AT ALL, because there will ALWAYS be extenuating circumstances. You can always blame what you do on how your parents raised you, or any of a million different things. It's very difficult to pin anyone down in any situation in this country.
I love it when I post and I see that someone just said what I was trying to say, but when they said it it was shorter and made sense.
[ July 08, 2004, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Ok, let's say I want to kill my worst enemy and sneak into his bedroom and fire several shots into his bed. Then I sneak out of his house. Only, he wasn't in his bed and the shots did nothing but put a few holes in his mattress. What would I be charged with?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Breaking and entering. Attempted murder. Damage of private property.
Wait a minute. Did you shoot the labels off the mattress? Because then you're in real trouble...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No one approves of 'proactive' meddling in an Orwellian fashion.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
While I'll talk about conditions all day, I'm also a strong proponent of taking responsibility for your actions. There's a middle ground and it can (and should be) sought, but where it lies can change.
love it when I post and I see that someone just said what I was trying to say, but when they said it it was shorter and made sense.
Yup. TomDavidson has the evil habit of doing that to me. I write a nice long speech and find that he snuck a two-sentence response in first.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Ok, let's say I want to kill my worst enemy and sneak into his bedroom and fire several shots into his bed. Then I sneak out of his house. Only, he wasn't in his bed and the shots did nothing but put a few holes in his mattress. What would I be charged with?
In some states the "purpose" level of culpability with regards to circumstances is defined by the perptrator's state of mind - if events were as the perpetrator believed them to be, could the crime have occurred. So you might be able to be charged with attempted murder.
In other states, impossibility is a defense for attempt. If your actions could not have harmed the victim (let's say the house was empty), then no attempt charge is probably possible.
But burglary (breaking into a dwelling with intent to commit a felony) is a no-brainer in any state.
In most states, there's probably enough of an act to qualify for attempt by breaking in with the gun and firing the shots.
Dagonee *Not to be used for any real case.
[ July 08, 2004, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I always loved that you'd get charged for attempted murder for that one. I mean, the guy wasn't even there! You'd be upset enough if you wounded the guy but didn't get him and got charged. I mean, at least you hurt the sucker. But to not get him at all? How frustrating.
Not that I advocate violence, kids. I just keep expecting to see this on a TV show or summin'.
Wait, was everyone still talking?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
TMedina, why would the Swiss have anything to do with Swedish law?
Or was I reading that wrong, missing something?
Kwea
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Oh, and BTW, Bob, in that scenario, no perp in his right mind would admit he was trying to kill the guy. He'd say he was so mad that he shot holes in his mattress.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Shush. In law hypos we ignore things like lying witnesses. Plus, intent is can be inferred from the act.
[ July 08, 2004, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Attempted murder. Now, honestly, what is that? Do they give a Novel prize for attempted chemistry?"
-- Sideshow Bob, The Simpsons
[ July 08, 2004, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
"To what extent should we go to preserve peace?" --PSI Teleport
This question is getting a lot of press in the UK right now.
The debate is about whether Islamic preacher, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, should be refused entry into the UK because he preaches that Muslims should use their ability to arm themselves as human bombs to attack their enemies. In addition some sides argue that he has "ties" to terrorist organizations. The UK Govt. has granted him entry and has not limited his ability to preach because he doesn't represent a threat to incite violence.
On the other hand, the US has banned him from entry.
Rubble
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I think I was addressing a point made regarding Switzerland?
Or I misread the initial post.
Both are possibilities.
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Would the UK act in a similar fashion with someone advocating the IRA do similar activities?
Or will their position change if a human bomb attacks a Brit target?
Not that the US is any more consistent in its policies, mind you...
-Trevor
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
Trevor,
Just my opinion but I think that the difference in policy between the US and UK is related to how recently each has been attacked.
There are, however, stark differences in ideology and law. The Prime Minister's answer at question time was straight forward: Here are the three criteria that have to be met to ban him. They've not been met.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
How's that different than the U.S.? The criteria might be different, but that's how it works here.
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
Dagonee,
I didn't mean to imply that the process was different. However, it is clear that the result of the British reasoning is different to that in the US.
Rubble
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah. Gotcha.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Breaking and entering. Attempted murder. Damage of private property.
Wait a minute. Did you shoot the labels off the mattress? Because then you're in real trouble...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)