America the Proud?

[Elvellon]

I'm not confusing the two. Wolfenstein does not encourage anyone to go out and commit racial violence. Violence is illegal - and once it crosses over to violence or personal theats - it crosses the line. Someone talking about the evils of a racial group - no matter how heinous their views may be - are still their views. Just because you don't agree with them - doesn't mean they don't have a right to their views.

Have you read it? Personally, I doubt he simply stated armless opinions.

What is guaranteed and what is a criminal matter?

“You” have the right to your opinion; “you” don’t have the right to urge others to act against the Law.

Slander is only protected against individuals

Not quite. The legal use of the word “slander” in the US may be that one you state, but since I’m not particular with “Anglo-Saxon” law I fail to have a better term here (besides we are not discussing US law per se). Case is, you can “slander” singular individuals specifically or as part of a group. Also, if the group is a legal entity it can also sue, as a group, the slanderer, or individuals of the group can.

- also - it is much harder in the US to claim slander than it seems to be in England. Here - as long as iI can prove it's true or if I state that it is my personal opinion - it is not slander. I can have my one opinions - who is someone else to say that they are right or wrong. You may disagree with my opinions - but you can't actually say that they are wrong. I can put together a website that "such and such an actress is a fat b***h" That can be determined slander - but if it's my opinion - they can't say I'm wrong and they can't do anything about it. The courts of the US will protect MY right to my opinions and to state them - which is GUARANTEED by the First Amendment.

If you can prove it is true, it automatically is not slander, but fact. It doesn’t matter if you are in the US or in Europe for that. First Amendment or not.
However, if you are getting into the personal life of someone revealing personal facts, without permission, than you have a classical case of conflicting freedoms:

Freedom of speech vs right to privacy.

Do not confuse the two. Because by upholding the first against the second you are not enjoying more freedom, but simply trading one freedom by another. Different cultures attribute different value to different kind of freedoms.

The thread has sort of gone off topic anyway though and has moved onto what is freedom. Is a country truly free when they infringe on a person's free speech they disagree with?

Yup, and that is a rather interesting subject.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Have you read it? Personally, I doubt he simply stated armless opinions.

It's video game that is based in Nazi Germany. You have to go save prisoner in a Nazi war camp.

“You” have the right to your opinion; “you” don’t have the right to urge others to act against the Law.

The only illegal thing is acting against the law. There is nothing regarding telling others. If they act against the law - that is illegal.

Not quite. The legal use of the word “slander” in the US may be that one you state, but since I’m not particular with “Anglo-Saxon” law I fail to have a better term here (besides we are not discussing US law per se). Case is, you can “slander” singular individuals specifically or as part of a group. Also, if the group is a legal entity it can also sue, as a group, the slanderer, or individuals of the group can.

We were talking about America really. There aren't any slander laws here. You can sue for slander in a court of law - but me saying something about someone is not illegal in itself. I can say anything I want about someone - but they can sue me. But it's not illegal for me to say anything I want.

If you can prove it is true, it automatically is not slander, but fact. It doesn’t matter if you are in the US or in Europe for that. First Amendment or not.
However, if you are getting into the personal life of someone revealing personal facts, without permission, than you have a classical case of conflicting freedoms:

Freedom of speech vs right to privacy.

The right of privacy is not guaranteed by the Constitution - freedom of Speech is. That is why the transcripts of the 9/11 are being released. NY Times took the case to court to release the transcripts. Under the freedom the Press the transcripts have to be released.

Do not confuse the two. Because by upholding the first against the second you are not enjoying more freedom, but simply trading one freedom by another. Different cultures attribute different value to different kind of freedoms.

No I'm not confusing the two. The right to privacyu is not guaranteed except against the government. I can find out anything I want about someone and have it printed first page in the paper. I am protected in doing that by the First Amendment.

[Elvellon]

It's video game that is based in Nazi Germany. You have to go save prisoner in a Nazi war camp.

Ah, that game, I thought you were referring to books? Well then, it is probably just judicial mistake, made by some judge who was in a hurry to depart for his holidays.

Sincerely, I doubt it will remain banned for long. That is why appeal courts exist anyway.

The only illegal thing is acting against the law. There is nothing regarding telling others.

Instigating someone to commit a crime is a crime per se. At least around here.

[b]
We were talking about America really. There any slander laws here. You can sue for slander in a court of law - but me saying something about someone is not illegal.

But we were talking of Europe also.

[b]
The right of privacy is not guaranteed by the Constitution - freedom of Speech is. That is why the transcripts of the 9/11 are being released. NY Times took the case to court to release the transcripts. Under the freedom the Press the transcripts have to be released.

Correction; the right to privacy is not guaranteed by the American Constitution. Since you are comparing US Law and european Law you are only considering part of the equation. I believe that most European constitutions guarantee the right to one’s dignity as part as the constitutional guaranteed rights, and yes, the right to privacy is considered as part of it.

Furthermore the very concept of what freedom of speech is varies from place to place. “Your” right to delve into, say, the PM’s private life and tell what you find is not seen at the same level as exposing of, say, governmental corruption.

[afro-elf]

Originally posted by Jinnigan
A better question to ask (imo) might be, "Why should /anyone/ take pride in their country, or ethnicity?"

But that's just me. I could be wrong.

Too worn out to go through the whole thread now; however, I am with Jinnigan.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon

Ah, that game, I thought you were referring to books? Well then, it is probably just judicial mistake, made by some judge who was in a hurry to depart for his holidays.

Sincerely, I doubt it will remain banned for long. That is why appeal courts exist anyway.

So you hope. It's been banned since it came out in the 80's.

Correction; the right to privacy is not guaranteed by the American Constitution. Since you are comparing US Law and european Law you are only considering part of the equation. I believe that most European constitutions guarantee the right to one’s dignity as part as the constitutional guaranteed rights, and yes, the right to privacy is considered as part of it.

Well we have a protection from the government. You might want to see what your constitution contains - because so far - most of your comments have been I think.

Furthermore the very concept of what freedom of speech is varies from place to place. “Your” right to delve into, say, the PM’s private life and tell what you find is not seen at the same level as exposing of, say, governmental corruption.

What do you mean? The freedom of the press means that anything that the press finds out - can be printed. If government ciorruption is discovered - that can be reported, if the president screwing on the side is discovered that can be reported. Freedom of Speech guarantees that I can state my opinions and my feeling regardless of whether you or anyone else feels about them. If you restrict one person's freedom - whose to say that your freedoms in a later time won't be restricted.

Afro-Elf - I am proud of America and I'm proud to be an American.

[Elvellon]

Well we have a protection from the government. You might want to see what your constitution contains - because so far - most of your comments have been I think.

I did take Constitutional Law, I know I’m rusty, and I didn’t took it in-depth, but I presume I have some notions about my own constitution, thank you.

Artº26
To all is guaranteed the right to personal identity, citizenship, civil capacity, to the good name and reputation, to the image, to the word and reserve of intimacy of the private and family life

What do you mean? The freedom of the press means that anything that the press finds out - can be printed. If government ciorruption is discovered - that can be reported, if the president screwing on the side is discovered that can be reported. Freedom of Speech guarantees that I can state my opinions and my feeling regardless of whether you or anyone else feels about them. If you restrict one person's freedom - whose to say that your freedoms in a later time won't be restricted.

I mean something I’ve been saying all this time; Freedom may be a universal value, but exactly how it is perceived is not universal. Your perception is not necessarily the only valid approach. Other societies may value other freedoms more than “your” God given right (or whatever) to say everything you please.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
I did take Constitutional Law, I know I’m rusty, and I didn’t took it in-depth, but I presume I have some notions about my own constitution, thank you.

Artº26
To all is guaranteed the right to personal identity, citizenship, civil capacity, to the good name and reputation, to the image, to the word and reserve of intimacy of the private and family life

Who does that protect you from? As I said - we have protection from the government.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The FBI is extremely limited in what it can do. The military service can not enforce things on American soil.

However - if I find out something about someone - I can print it in the paper or do whatever I want with it. Does that article in your constitution protect you from the government or from the media or from your next door neighbor? What exactly does it protect you from?

Our Constitution is there to limit the powers of the government and to protect the citizens from any abuses by the government.

As you can see to - in Amendment X - most of the power is reserved to the states. The Federal government is very limited in it's power - most of all the laws originate in the states. So the laws of California are very different from the laws of New Jersey.

I mean something I’ve been saying all this time; Freedom may be a universal value, but exactly how it is perceived is not universal. Your perception is not necessarily the only valid approach. Other societies may value other freedoms more than “your” God given right (or whatever) to say everything you please.

There is no freedom if you can't state your opinions or belief that others might find offensive or disagree with. Without Freedom of Speech - there is no freedom. If you can be locked up for saying you hate the Prime Minister - that isn't freedom or if a satirical politcal cartoon is censored by the government - that is not freedom.

[afro-elf]

Afro-Elf - I am proud of America and I'm proud to be an American.

I know great defender of the faith.

And I respect your reasons because you are knowledgeable and can defend your reason articulately you are not a blind votary.

[Aeryn]

Originally posted by Diaxion
For those Americans out there or non- Americans, why should Americans be proud after looking at the United States' history? (For reference look at A People's History...... by Howard Zinn).

Are you serious?

Why shouldn't we be proud?
Every nation has some sort of -negative- areas. That is what makes the future said areas positives.

[HOBBIT]

i think the topic starter is proud to be american - he was just trying to make an interesting topic. i believe he is one of my cousins.

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
i think the topic starter is proud to be american - he was just trying to make an interesting topic. i believe he is one of my cousins.

What a soap opera! A guy comes to bmilder's board, and it turns out the guy is the cousin of captain Tarpols (who nowadays goes under the name HOBBIT). The cousin starts a thread, in which JerseyDevil (who lives very close to both bmilder and captain Tarpols and I believe he has even met both of them in person) fully expresses his feelings about America - again

[Lalaith]

Originally posted by jerseydevil

1) Actually if a child is born here - they automatically are granted US citizenship.

2) So in other words - you have no problem with restricting the free speech of others as long as you don't agree with them?

3) We have the checks and balances in our government. The President can not do anything without congress - unlike in many European countries where the Prime Minister has much more power. The President has limited power. Congress in turn is limited by the Supreme Court.

4) That is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. I assume the country you mean is the US.. Too bad you have never been here to know know anything about our country.

By the way - really funny how France almost voted in LePen there.

5) i didn't say you were a land of outlaws. But so far you have stated - you can freely restrict the thoughts and expressions of others - because you disagree with them and that you don't have a problem with that. That I find really sad that you find nothing wrong. It's easy to accept restrictions on people's ideas when you disagree with them - much harder to stick up for the rights of the people whose ideas disgust you.

6) So they only get the amount of benefits equal to the amount they put into the system?

Communism is a socialist system. it's just further left than socialism. You have a socialist system. I agree with limited social programs - but the government handling anything just turns into a mismanaged beaurocratic mess.

1) I'm not stupid. I know that.

2) So in other words ... I said don't put something into my speech that I have never said. But okay, I can do so too: In other words, you think that National Socialists should be allowed?

3) The prime minister can't do everything. That's not true. For what reason do you think we have a parliament?

4) We have laws to prevent National Socialism and it is a fact that these right wing extremists go to countries where they can be right winged. That's not ingnorance, that's a fact.
Yah, funny. I guess you had a good laugh. I didn't talk of France. And if I think of it.
France was on your side, not ours. Hmmm.

5) It's not about disgusting ideas, books or anything. It's about preventing National Socialism. You don't get that, do you?

6) Am I getting political lessons now from YOU? ha. I know what communism is, I know about left and right winged parties.
As for the system: Everybody gets what he/she needs. Should we only pay half of the hospital bill just because a worker was hurt? And when the boss of the company is hurt, he gets the whole bill payed. that would be unfair.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lalaith
1) I'm not stupid. I know that.

Didn't know if you did or not. Not a mind reader here.

2) So in other words ... I said don't put something into my speech that I have never said. But okay, I can do so too: In other words, you think that National Socialists should be allowed?

I think in a FREE country the ideas of others should always be allowed to be expressed - whether you argree with them or not. Hitler wasn't elected for the extermination of the jews or to start a war or to burn books. He was able to do what he did because his power wasn't checked and he was able to brainwash an entire nation.

3) The prime minister can't do everything. That's not true. For what reason do you think we have a parliament?

You might want to reread what I said - where did I say the Prime Minister could do EVERYTHING? The Prime Minister however is more powerful than our president though.

4) We have laws to prevent National Socialism and it is a fact that these right wing extremists go to countries where they can be right winged. That's not ingnorance, that's a fact.

Funny - I've never seen these right wingers here making speeches on the steps or anything. I have seen plenty of skin head and neo nazi marches in Germany though - so obviously you aren't taking away enough of their freedoms. maybe you should just lock them up for their ideas.

There was recently a documentary on the neo-nazi party in the US on tv this week. It included how after World War II - many of europe's nazi members came over here to set up camp. Their ideas are protected by the Constitution and no matter how much I may hate them - I would hate it more if we restricted them. I would rather fight them with enlightment - than with taking away their freedoms.

Yah, funny. I guess you had a good laugh. I didn't talk of France. And if I think of it.
France was on your side, not ours. Hmmm.

yeah - France was on our side during WWII - I assume that's what you mean by "on our side". What does that have to do with anything?

5) It's not about disgusting ideas, books or anything. It's about preventing National Socialism. You don't get that, do you?

Don't the voters prevent National Socialism by not voiting for them? Or are your countries still bigotted that you need to have laws to prevent the resurgence of National Socialism? The Communists are an official party in the US - no one votes for them - but they can have a presidential candidate. And i do get it - you restrict the freedoms of others to have their opinions and then try to say you live in a free country. I don't agree with Socialism, The Green Party, the KKK, the White Supremicist or the Communist Party or the Neo Nazis - but I still feel they all have a right to their ideas and free expression of those ideas - however heinous or outrageous they may be - just as long as they don't result in the harm of others.

6) Am I getting political lessons now from YOU? ha. I know what communism is, I know about left and right winged parties.

I'm sure you know what communism is. You just seem to feel the US is too right wing for you. That is fine - we have a free country where people can openly express there feelings - whether you agree with them or not. You seem to bury and outlaw half your populations opinions. I gather it's half if you're afraid that the neo-nazis will again come to power.

As for the system: Everybody gets what he/she needs. Should we only pay half of the hospital bill just because a worker was hurt? And when the boss of the company is hurt, he gets the whole bill payed. that would be unfair.

If you think that the boss gets better care when it comes to health insurance in the US - you are wrong. How high are your taxes to pay for all this superior service? Contrary to many outsiders beliefs - no one is turned away from a hospital who needs treatment. By law - whether a person is homeless or not - they must be given care.

[jerseydevil]

Someone had sent me this as a forward...

The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. The guy should run for President...

"We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, delusional and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights."

ARTICLE I:
You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II:
You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be ... and like the rest of us you need to simply deal with it.

ARTICLE III:
You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV:
You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V:
You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI:
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII:
You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV, pool tables, weight rooms or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII:
You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of part time jobs, education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX:
You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness --which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights,"

ARTICLE X:
This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from. We welcome you here. English is our language and like the one you left behind, we also have a culture. Learn it or go back to the country and the living conditions you were fleeing.

Healthcare is a government benefit - and all other socialist programs european countries - as well as the US have are benefits. There is no guarantee they will be there in the future or at the levels they are now. if times get tough - something has to give.

[GrayMouser]

I'm with jerseydevil on the free speech issue. Canada has "hate speech" laws, and I regard them as a pernicious influence.

There was a long-running battle fought in Canada over a neo-Nazi's right to deny that the Holocaust occured.

Look at the Skokie, PA case. A racist anti-Semitic group wanted to march through a neighbourhood heavily populated by Jews; in spite of overwhelming public revulsion the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) fought and won their right to peacefully assemble.

Now, I personally regard Holocaust-deniers and neo-Nazis as life-forms slightly lower than cockroaches on the evolutionary scale, but as Voltaire (another Frenchman heard from) said "however much I disagree with what you say, I'll defend to the death your
right to say it."

OTOH, there are other areas where the US has been somewhat less free- it was only last month that the Supreme Court finally
struck down the ridiculous sodomy laws enacted by many states.

As Pierre Trudeau (former Canadian PM) said back in 1967, "the State has no place in the bedrooms of the Nation"- glad to see the Yanks catching up,

[Elvellon]

Who does that protect you from? As I said - we have protection from the government.

You have expressed doubt that the right to privacy be a constitutional right, Artº 26 clearly states it.

However - if I find out something about someone - I can print it in the paper or do whatever I want with it. Does that article in your constitution protect you from the government or from the media or from your next door neighbor? What exactly does it protect you from?

From the government, media and my next door neighbour. We are speaking of Fundamental Rights and Duties guaranteed by the Constitution (note that they are not “granted” they are “guaranteed”). As such, they are of universal application, for instance the Artº18, first paragraph states:

“The constitutional precepts pertaining the rights, liberties and guaranties (such as the Artº26) are directly applicable and bind public and private entities.”

What you were stating in your answer seems to be related with the inviolability of one’s home and correspondence. The Artº34 assures that
1. Both home and the confidentiality of the mail and other means of private communication are inviolable.
2. The entrance in the home of a citizen against his will can only be ordered by the competent judicial authority, restricted to such cases and forms as established by the law. (Meaning that, in no case, they can go against any constitutional guarantee, right or liberty).
3. It is forbidden any form of intromission of the public authorities in the mail and telecommunications, except in the cases pertaining issues of criminal law, as stated in the law.

There is no freedom if you can't state your opinions or belief that others might find offensive or disagree with. Without Freedom of Speech - there is no freedom. If you can be locked up for saying you hate the Prime Minister - that isn't freedom or if a satirical political cartoon is censored by the government - that is not freedom.

There is no freedom if you can’t even guarantee your right to privacy, and honour; without respect for one’s personal privacy and honour, you are less than free.

Furthermore you seem to ascribe the same importance to the right of revealing governmental corruption and, say, revealing that the PM is having an affair. Not so around here. One is an issue of the public domain, concerning all, the other is of the private domain, and concerns only those directly involved (unless if the PM made it a public affair himself). The example you gave is not relevant, because there are no conflicting rights in it. You have the right to state you hate the government, if you choose to say so.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Dúnedain

2) Find where he/she lives and beat the crap out of them

This has been a public service announcement by Dúnedain

Thank you Dunedain, for your enlightening viewpoint on the First Amendment. I'm sure a suggestion from a scholar of such eloquence will be given the full consideration it deserves.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
OTOH, there are other areas where the US has been somewhat less free- it was only last month that the Supreme Court finally
struck down the ridiculous sodomy laws enacted by many states.

Those were state laws - hnot national laws. As our Constitution says - anything not specified in the Constitution is left to the states. The case was brought before the supreme court and the court determined that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. it's the way our system works.

As Pierre Trudeau (former Canadian PM) said back in 1967, "the State has no place in the bedrooms of the Nation"- glad to see the Yanks catching up,

There were only a handful of anti-sodomy laws in the US and most of them were blue laws. it was because of the Texas event where two people in the privacy of their home were arrested that made everyone outraged.

As I said before - the federal government has very few laws - the majority of laws are determined individually by the states. NJ didn't have anti-sodomy laws. So you shoudn't say that the US caught up to Canada - because there were no laws under the US federal government talking about sodomy one way or the other. Now it has been deremined unconstitutional and all states had to eliminate all their anti-sodomy laws.

[Elvellon]

Healthcare is a government benefit - and all other socialist programs european countries - as well as the US have are benefits. There is no guarantee they will be there in the future or at the levels they are now. if times get tough - something has to give.

If you mean by that that is not considered a constitutional right, you are only speaking for the US case, for instance, in my country it IS considered a constitutional right.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
There is no freedom if you can’t even guarantee your right to privacy, and honour; without respect for one’s personal privacy and honour, you are less than free.

What does that matter if you don't even have a right to state your opinions?

I have a right to people coming into my home and so forth. But if someone finds out about something - it can be made public. I know England has no problem revealing the private lives of people - maybe you do - but in England all you have ot do is see what happened witht he Diana tapes. Her privacy there wasn't protected and they even listened in on private phone calls. I am unsure if a person can do what happened to Princess Diana in your country though.

Furthermore you seem to ascribe the same importance to the right of revealing governmental corruption and, say, revealing that the PM is having an affair. Not so around here. One is an issue of the public domain, concerning all, the other is of the private domain, and concerns only those directly involved (unless if the PM made it a public affair himself). The example you gave is not relevant, because there are no conflicting rights in it. You have the right to state you hate the government, if you choose to say so.

When a person in power has an affair it DOES have an affect on national security. It's not private - national secrets can be revealed. Also - if a person can't keep it zipped and stay faithful to his wife - in what other ways aren't they being truthful. Especially - as in Clinton's case he pointed right at the camera and said - "I have never had sexual relations with that woman". But it was less about the sex than it was about him trying to convince people to lie under oath in a court of law.

We look at the president as being our employee - not as the "supreme leader" of our country. The government works and answers to us. If they're private life gets in the way of there job - then it is the public's business.