Re: Expats And Politics - Expressing Opinions Publicly

[Bajo_cero2]

Nope not confused. I'm well aware that law can be used to censor. That's what I'm talking about. You're confused about the meaning of "free speech." Deciding that "racissm" is illegal is no different than deciding that blasphemy is illegal or questioning the govt. is illegal. You're probably "confused" and think you can arbitrarily decide what is the "limit" of free speech based on content because you never read any of the original arguments for free speech in people like Mill.

Good job aping the speaking patterns of USA journalists though, "you're confused," etc. ...what a pompous donkey.

I suggest you read this:
https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=4Ldb0cIbS7kC&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=freedom+of+speech+race+hate&source=bl&ots=vgTJOqElVf&sig=7DK63skAZ5recxSs1FQNhQkiXpY&hl=es&sa=X&ei=Q6TGVN7XEOaIsQSgqoLIAQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwBA

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Nope not confused. I'm well aware that law can be used to censor. That's what I'm talking about. You're confused about the meaning of "free speech." Deciding that "racissm" is illegal is no different than deciding that blasphemy is illegal or questioning the govt. is illegal. You're probably "confused" and think you can arbitrarily decide what is the "limit" of free speech based on content because you never read any of the original arguments for free speech in people like Mill.

Good job aping the speaking patterns of USA journalists though, "you're confused," etc. ...what a pompous donkey.

After WWII there was a consensus regarding that this cannot happend again. The idea lying behind the UN and the international treaties of human right was to avoid genocidals and another world wide war. This is the key to understand the limits of freedom of speach.

To incite race hate is the tool to create the background to make a genocide happend.

The European Court of human rights has state the following:

"Tolerance and respect of the equal dignity of all human beings constitutes the foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society. That being so, as a matter of principle it might be neccesary in certain democratic societies to sanction or even prevent all forms of exp<b></b>ression wich spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance" Erbakan vs Turkey.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Hate_speech_ENG.pdf

 

[jbeas176]

back to free speech and the law. first amendment rights gone the other way. I had a subcontractor that decided they would try the promises of the union for its employee's. they paid a lot of fees but were making less money. their contract let them leave after one year. the union started visiting my site and protesting. I asked whats the problem. they said they had a dispute with said contractor. told them to leave. turns out the dispute was with them protesting in front of the subcontractors office and calling the office personnel who were female fu*king cun*s when they were retrieving the mail while the police were present. my friend asked why the abuse was possible ... personal assault...disturbing the peace, no freedom of speech. the protest was over abusive behavior in a public place disrupting the course of business. is it right? no. is it protected by constitutional law? yes

 

[jbeas176]

if you don't understand the slur I can put it another way. c*nt. not a good word in the US. almost makes you want to fist fight in defense of your employees regardless the cost. the union tries to get you to assault them to make their case in court. true story

 

[Matt84]

The WWII ans its 50 million people dead created the consensus that there are basic rights that should be respected to every human being: human rights. The reason the States recognized these rights to its subjects is to avoid another world war and

You're a LAWYER! You studied Law, at some point in your life before inevitably and 100% excusably giving to the system and its realities you must have studied RIGHTS.
The Human Rights of NOT being killed, NOT being drafted for an offensive war, NOT being violated, etc, had been declared way before WWII and it did not impede any of the governments of the nations involved to utterly ignore them!
And after 50 million individual human beings slaughtered DIRECTLY by the governments who were supposed to protect them (at least one or three of the parties involved) your brilliant conclusion is that since BASIC NEGATIVE HUMAN RIGHTS such as the right NOT TO BE KILLED are too difficult to enforce, let's just move things forward and declare new fantastic rights for everyone enforced by a magical organization granting bread and education and "PEACE"!!! "???? and all the positive rights that such non-genocidal fellows such as the Fuhrer, Stalin and FDR tried so hard and at such a human cost to bring about!
Who are you trying to convince? Or have you never seen it this way?

 

[Matt84]

Bajo Cero: You think it was Hitler's freedom of speech that allowed for Nazism to take place? I think you do.

Re Racism: You work with Chinese immigrants, therefore I can only assume you work with extremely, profoundly, honestly racist people who do not consider their racism wrong, misguided, or in any way related to the possibility of violence. Just like (I can only speculate) your Ruskin colony in Entre Rios, they like to keep to themselves without inflicting the rights of others.

Japan has remained after WWII an extremely genetically isolated society (racist) and still they don't kick tourists or immigrants on the streets or behave in any way other than with enviable respect when they are tourists or immigrants. So what's the correlation?
Fascist Japan did not arise from a Democratic system and Freedom of Speech, quiet the contrary, it was a military clique within a monarchy (like ALL other non Socialist Fascist countries).

The Soviet Union was a signatory of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Lies. How was it different from Nazi Germany other than that their horror was longer and more protracted?
The Russians under the Soviet regime ethnically cleansed and moved populations as much as the Nazis.
In fact the largest human displacement in less than 10 years took place when the Soviets deported 20 million peasants from their homeland. Nobody recorded how many died.

 

[Matt84]

When the World was overcome with rats, we brought the snakes to kill them off. Then gave the snakes a permanent seat in the Security Council.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

You're a LAWYER! You studied Law, at some point in your life before inevitably and 100% excusably giving to the system and its realities you must have studied RIGHTS.
The Human Rights of NOT being killed, NOT being drafted for an offensive war, NOT being violated, etc, had been declared way before WWII and it did not impede any of the governments of the nations involved to utterly ignore them!
And after 50 million individual human beings slaughtered DIRECTLY by the governments who were supposed to protect them (at least one or three of the parties involved) your brilliant conclusion is that since BASIC NEGATIVE HUMAN RIGHTS such as the right NOT TO BE KILLED are too difficult to enforce, let's just move things forward and declare new fantastic rights for everyone enforced by a magical organization granting bread and education and "PEACE"!!! "???? and all the positive rights that such non-genocidal fellows such as the Fuhrer, Stalin and FDR tried so hard and at such a human cost to bring about!
Who are you trying to convince? Or have you never seen it this way?

History of the Document

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948, was the result of the experience of the Second World War. With the end of that war, and the creation of the United Nations, the international community vowed never again to allow atrocities like those of that conflict happen again. World leaders decided to complement the UN Charter with a road map to guarantee the rights of every individual everywhere. The document they considered, and which would later become the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was taken up at the first session of the General Assembly in 1946. The Assembly reviewed this draft Declaration on Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms and transmitted it to the Economic and Social Council "for reference to the Commission on Human Rights for consideration . . . in its preparation of an international bill of rights." The Commission, at its first session early in 1947, authorized its members to formulate what it termed "a preliminary draft International Bill of Human Rights". Later the work was taken over by a formal drafting committee, consisting of members of the Commission from eight States, selected with due regard for geographical distribution.

http://www.un.org/en...r/history.shtml

Here is the full text of the document:
http://www.un.org/en...dhr/index.shtml

Law has 3 purpouses: 1) to influence in the behaviour or people in order that they desist of commiting crimes 2) clearly describe what is legal and not 3) and to punish them.

Before human rights were created, there was international common law that stablished some vague limits and rights. The main characteristic of the human rights law is that they are super specific.

Human rights also can be enforced al local Courts but when they fail you can go to international Courts and in some cases there is also an international Criminal Court that investigates mainly genocides.

Nazis criminal were judged at Nuremberg and other trials. This opened the door to persecute the most powerful men: Presidents, dictators, generals.

You asserted it is useless but here history shows that you are wrong:

http://www.tiempojud...en-La-Razón.jpg

According to this article, during 2011 193 persons were judged or are under judgemt for crimes against the humanity. Persons who were already found gulty are 266 and persons in jail are 593. This info is not updated. We are talking about KIddnaping, rape, assesination, kidnapping of babies, etc.

http://www.pagina12....2011-12-24.html

This is a brief of the cases before the International Criminal Court:

http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/situations%20and%20cases/Pages/situations%20and%20cases.aspx

Law cannot achieve that crime doesn happend any more.

But this is off topic, we were talking about freedom of speach. If you want to know what are the limits of freedom of speach, you can read the case I posted from the European Court of Human Rights that states that the speach of hate is not legal.

 

[nicoenarg]

I don't think there's confusion as to where what kind of speech is legal or not legal. I think the point that Matt84 is making is that allowing free speech does not result in genocide. For example, it is inaccurate to say that Holocaust was a result of people exercising their right to free speech. On the contrary, Nazis threw any dissenters in concentration camps along with those they didn't deem human enough. In Nazi Germany free speech rights were nowhere to be found. Its the same with North Korea and other such regimes.

The book Bajo_cero2 linked to above (chapter 6) even says that the US is a distinct case where freedom of speech is enshrined in the constitution regardless of whether that speech hurts someone's feelings or not. At the same time, speech that incites to violence is a crime. However, freedom of speech there has never resulted in genocide.

There is a distinction between someone saying they hate a certain kind of people based on their race, religion or sexual preference (this speech, in my opinion, should be protected and people should be able to voice their opinions in this regard. It is not a basic human right to not be offended once you grow up out of the the kindergarten age group) and folks inciting violence through their speech which ends in physical hurt or danger of the targeted group. The fact that certain governments and courts decided to make one's opinion a crime does not make it universally so.

 

[Rich One]

!!

Note; The Presidenta expressed that the man that provided the gun to Nisman, Lagomarsino, is a staunch Opositor as revealed by his machista TWITS and insults highly derogatory of the Presidenta in Social Media .....!! Also Lagomarsino's brother works for a legal Bureau , associated to Clarin...!!