[Assam] Freedom of speech censored?
One's basic premise of understanding in regard tofree speech rights, would perhaps be clear if one reads the following paragraphs: "Holmes' famous standard of protected speech involved two tests: proximity and degree. In other words, the crucial consideration for speech that promoted an illegal act was how likely that speech was to foment that act. That's why your ability to say, "I'm so mad at my wife I could just kill her" is protected by the First Amendment, but your ability to say, "If I gave you $10,000, would you kill my wife for me" is not. The former statement fails in degree. It is unlikely to elicit an illegal act. The latter succeeds in degree, however. It is likely to elicit an illegal act. (Parenthetically if you asked your cat or your dog to kill your wife or asked me to do it in Japanese, your speech would be protected because it fails on proximity. Since we couldn't understand you, we'd be unlikely to commit the illegal act you advocate.) Prosecuting Robertson's speech is prevented for the same reason. Prosecution could succeed on proximity (the people who could commit the illegality he espoused could certainly have been influence by his assertion), but it would fail on degree. The likelihood of the Bush Administration being influenced to the extent that a public offical would be induced to violate the law is highly improbable. It's possible, but not to a degree sufficient to prove causation. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Robertson had advocated selling plutonium to al-Qaeda. Same likelihood; same result: free speech. The same principle applies to threatening the President, for example. Illegal speech must present, in the words of Justice Holmes, "a clear and present danger that [it] will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, your denigration of President Bush as a "lying, murderous son of a b***h" is protected by the First Amendment. It doesn't create a clear and present danger that you're going to kill him. On the other hand, if you go on TV and say, "I think we should assassinate that lying, murderous son of a b***h", you're going to find yourself in a whole lot of trouble with some people who have shiny badges and big guns. Your words have created a credible threat on the life of the President, which is a clear and present danger that Congress has a right to prevent." KJD. ___ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
Re: [Assam] Freedom of speech censored?
Speech,thought,theories,lifestyle,sexual preference, artforms--should be left to individual choice--i.e. if the state thinks it has now grown up.mmMuslims, who want to live under the Islamic Sharia Law and who resort to incendiary speech, were told recently to get out of Australia as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.Do you think that the free speech rights have been trampled on by the Australian govt?KJD. Mike's question is rather wide. In civilised countries personal laws are usually respected so long onelivesin peace with his or her neighbour. It is both a matter of give and take and tolerance. As it is no longer possiblefor a homogeneous population to live inclinical isolation in any progressive civilised society today; liberalism must prevail over racial, linguistic, religious and other differences which dividehumanity. Deka's question has specified one area: free speech.Free speech does not connote absolute freedom of speech; it is hedged'.Recently the UK Governmenthas brought about new legislation to prevent acts of terrorism by incendiary speech or otherwise. As a democracy Australia has the benefit of the rule of law.If someone is aggrieved by an infringement of the laws of free speech, he can seek recourse in theCourts. In 1991,Lord Donaldson, a former Master of the Rolls of UK, found a Cabinet Minister gulty of contempt law for defying a court order and deporting a man from Zaire while the case was pending in court. He observed "It would be a black day for the rule of law and the liberty of the subject if ministers were not accountrable to the courts for their personal actions. Muslims today are not strictly governed by Sharia law in any country. For example, Muslims in India are subject to the Indian Penal Code rather than the harsh Quaranic laws of crime. Bhuban ___ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
Re: [Assam] Freedom of speech censored?
Title: Re: [Assam] Freedom of speech censored? Kamal's question is a rather vague one, directed towards justifying certain acts and attitudes towards people of the Muslim faith that bedevil a number of people of India, who identify themselves with Hindu nationalism, regardless of whether they believe in the undefined tenets of Hinduism. * What exactly is 'incendiary'? What is its definition? If it is definable and defined,in a society where there is a track record of trustworthiness of civilized and timely law-enforcement and justice, and where a majority of a truly democratic polity accepts it within the bounds of a Constitution, one might say it is the prerogative of that society to establish BOUNDS to such speech as maybe detrimental to that society's well being. But in the absence of such safeguards, such infringements to free-speech will be anything but tyranny of the majority in the guise of democracy. Now I take the liberty of suggesting to our good friend Kamal, that perhaps he ought to pose the question to people like: A: Pat Robertson B: Prabin Thogadiya C: Balsaheb Thackerey D: Ayatolla Whoever What better way to get practical advice than from practising professionals? At 8:13 AM -0400 9/2/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Speech,thought,theories,lifestyle,sexual preference, artforms--should be left to individual choice--i.e. if the state thinks it has now grown up. mm Muslims, who want to live under the Islamic Sharia Law and who resort to incendiary speech, were told recently to get out of Australia as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks. Do you think that the free speech rights have been trampled on by the Australian govt? KJD. Mike's question is rather wide. In civilised countries personal laws are usually respected so long onelivesin peace with his or her neighbour. It is both a matter of give and take and tolerance. As it is no longer possiblefor a homogeneous population to live inclinical isolation in any progressive civilised society today; liberalism must prevail over racial, linguistic, religious and other differences which dividehumanity. Deka's question has specified one area: free speech.Free speech does not connote absolute freedom of speech; it is hedged'.Recently the UK Governmenthas brought about new legislation to prevent acts of terrorism by incendiary speech or otherwise. As a democracy Australia has the benefit of the rule of law.If someone is aggrieved by an infringement of the laws of free speech, he can seek recourse in theCourts. In 1991,Lord Donaldson, a former Master of the Rolls of UK, found a Cabinet Minister gulty of contempt law for defying a court order and deporting a man from Zaire while the case was pending in court. He observed It would be a black day for the rule of law and the liberty of the subject if ministers were not accountrable to the courts for their personal actions. Muslims today are not strictly governed by Sharia law in any country. For example, Muslims in India are subject to the Indian Penal Code rather than the harsh Quaranic laws of crime. Bhuban ___ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org ___ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
Re: [Assam] Freedom of speech censored?
At 5:56 PM -0700 9/2/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline Mine was a pin-pointed question. I am glad that Bhubanda of UK has set forth a fitting reply. Rights, in any democracy, are not unfettered. I don't know that anyone one dispute that. BUT, 'incendiery', 'inflamatory' etc. are adjectives that mean little, unless they are DEFINED. Inflammatory speech that is calculated as a call to the murder of, and violence against innocents has never been considered protected speech under the First Amendment clause of the US Constitution. I wonder where Pat Robertson's call to assassinate Chavez of Venezuela would fall. If I remember correctly,the great leader of democracy and its self-appointed standard bearer around the globe , GWB, said that Pat Robertson is entitled to his opinion -- that simple. Was it in defense of free speech or was it in defense of political expediency? That is the conundrum of the day. Just like the Australian question that is. Therefore, free speech has its own parameters. The Supreme Court of the US had already expressed the principle that there were limits to excercising the right of free speech. In fact, in a case titled, Schenck versus US, the SC of the US opined that The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre and causing a panic. Inflammatory speech that is calculated as a call to the murder of, and violence against innocents has never been considered protected speech under the First Amendment clause of the US Constitution. KJD. ___ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org ___ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
[Assam] Freedom of speech censored?
Muslims, who want to live under the Islamic Sharia Law and who resort to incendiary speech, were told recently to get out of Australia as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks. Do you think that the free speech rights have been trampled on by the Australian govt? KJD. ___ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
Re: [Assam] Freedom of speech censored?
Speech,thought,theories,lifestyle,sexual preference, artforms--should be left to individual choice--i.e. if the state thinks it has now grown up. mm From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: assam@assamnet.org Subject: [Assam] Freedom of speech censored? Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 17:46:46 -0700 Muslims, who want to live under the Islamic Sharia Law and who resort to incendiary speech, were told recently to get out of Australia as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks. Do you think that the free speech rights have been trampled on by the Australian govt? KJD. ___ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org ___ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
