Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 18, 2008 11:33:59 GMT -4
I heard on the radio today that someone (a Canadian) said free speech was an American concept, not Canadian. I guess that person forgets why we fought those bloody wars in the past. Ther person was Dean Steacy, an investigator for the Canadian national Human Rights Commission, and his quote was: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 18, 2008 11:51:58 GMT -4
Bilal Hussein was held by the military because bomb parts and insurgent propoganda were found in his home in Ramadi, and when they went looking for him he was caught with two insurgent leaders. And he was released in April of this year as being no longer a significant threat (presumably things have changed enough in Iraq that his contacts are no longer important). What photos could he have taken that the Army would object to? When Iraq was big news (when things weren't going as well as they are now) there were new photos of the aftermath of car bombs and other attacks on TV and the internet every day.
Your other refrence to the guy who videotaped Katrina refugees is too vague for me to track down and verify.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Jun 18, 2008 12:51:43 GMT -4
The main problem with using this as your index is that freedom of the press does not exactly equal the freedom of expression of private citizens. Press organizations have to answer to editors and networks in order to get their reports telecast or printed. Private citizens do not. A refusal of private companies like networks or newspapers to provide you with a platform is not a restriction on your ability to express yourself. I disagree. Your example of the US having greater freedom of expression than Canada was the Steyn Human Rights Commission case. That case has to do with published works in a news magazine. Freedom of the press is very pertinent to this discussion. If you want to talk about the freedoms of private citizens outside of published works, you need to drop the Steyn case as proof, as well as all other instances of censorship or suppression of published works. What do you mean? Published remarks (including but not limited to print), or non-published (including but not limited to speech)? Frankly I would argue that if you don't look at people's rights in the context of published works, you're missing a big part of the picture. If you are free to say things, but not in print, you really aren't free to say things at all. First, can you provide proof of that claim? Second, legal protections mean nothing at all if practise does not follow the law. The Soviet Union had the most liberal constitution in the world for quite some time - even under Stalin. Laws mean nothing if not exercised. The issue with Al-Haj was that he was held for six years without charge. That's a huge problem, especially since he was released - if he did nothing, why was he held? I don't know enough about Bailey to comment. That's an economic boycott of Israel. Say I own a company, and I don't like Israel. I decide that my company will not deal with Israelis - I'm boycotting the country. That is an act of expression. It is also an offence that could lead to my being jailed for up to five years. The Ribicoff Amendment is indeed a legal restriction on expression in the United States. I cannot express my disapproval of Israel, if I so choose, by economic boycott. I normally don't have issues with sealed court documents. However, since the scope of NSLs was expanded by the PATRIOT Act, the gag order becomes an important restriction on speech. The ACLU has alleged that NSLs are being abused, and no one who knows (that is, those served with the Letters) is allowed to talk about it. That's the issue. Freedom to say things is nothing without freedom to say things in published form. An index of press freedom, while by no means comprehensively dealing with the issue, is very useful in determining the extent of freedom of expression in a nation. You cannot participate in an economic boycott of Israel. While you aren't necessarily saying something verbally, you are "saying" something.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 18, 2008 13:36:34 GMT -4
I disagree. Your example of the US having greater freedom of expression than Canada was the Steyn Human Rights Commission case. That case has to do with published works in a news magazine. Freedom of the press is very pertinent to this discussion. I didn't say press freedom wasn't pertinent - it certainly is. What I was getting at is that there is a difference between the freedom of expression of the press and the freedom of expression of a private citizen. The press answers to editors and networks - they are an additional filter on what gets to the public beyond the strictly legal level. Therefore you can't exactly equate what gets into print or on TV on a network or newspaper with what can or can't be legally said. Another thought that occurred to me was to wonder if they took scale into account when compiling this index. I darsay there are many more journalists and reporters at work covering news in the U.S. then there are in, say, Iceland, which is at the top of the list. More journalists means the possibility of more complaints and a lower rating. I meant both published and non-published remarks. But being unable to convince editors or publishers to publish your opus to the masses, and being unable to convince the masses to make it a New York Times best seller do not constitute a restriction on your freedom of expression. Just because you are unable to make yourself widely heard through print, television, or radio does not mean that you don't have the freedom to express yourself. It's a complex subject to provide black and white proof for. One possible proof that the U.S. has better protections would be found by comparing what you can and can't do in other nations, wouldn't it? If I can criticize the homosexual lifestyle freely here in the U.S., for instance, but am subject to prosecution and fines for violating Human Rights in Canada, then Canada is less free. If I can wear Nazi symbols and deny the Haulocaust here, but would be arrested and sent to prison in Germany or Austria, then Germany and Austria are less free. If I can draw cartoons mocking Mohammed in the U.S. but would be subject to the death penalty for doing so in Iran, then Iran is less free. I generally agree. If the government refuses to enforce the legal protections that are theoretically in place then freedom of expression has been lost. However, one of my objections to the index you presented was that it seems to also include the actions of criminals as counting against a nation (such as the assassination of Chauncey Bailey). If legal protections are in place, and criminals violate them but are prosecuted for doing so, then I think the nation is doing what it can, and such incidents shouldn't be counted against a nation. So, for example, the murder of Theo van Gogh should not mean that the Netherlands doesn't protect free expression. Which is irrelevent to the issue of freedom of expression, unless you can make a case that Al-Haj was held because of something he said. German prisoners of War were held for years without charge and without any chance to appeal their confinement during WW II. You are using too broad a definition of expression. I could say "I am expressing my contempt of government energy policy when I steal gasoline at my local station," or "I am expressing my radical Islamic religion when I crash airplanes into buildings," and it could be considered accurate in one sense, but obviously such criminal actions can't qualify as protected speech. Discriminating against Israel by refusing to deal with them because they are Jewish is criminal. Advocating an economic boycott of Israel and protesting its policies is protected expression and you can do it all you like. Because economic boycotts are not protected speech. You can express your disapproval in many other ways. And there are obvious and compelling reasons why you should be restricted from telling terrorists or drug dealers or other criminals that the FBI has requested their phone or credit card or hotel registry records. Which was my point - it's a possible helpful indicator, but not authoritative evidence. It does not disprove my position that the U.S. is one of the best in the world at protecting and promoting free expression.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 18, 2008 18:07:49 GMT -4
So are you saying that you have more freedom of speech in the U.S. because you can say anything about anybody and get away with it?
Shouldn't there be some responsibility taken by each person in what he/she says or does?
Or should anybody be able to be slandered at will?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 18, 2008 18:15:36 GMT -4
So are you saying that you have more freedom of speech in the U.S. because you can say anything about anybody and get away with it? Shouldn't there be some responsibility taken by each person in what he/she says or does? Or should anybody be able to be slandered at will? Being able to say anything about anybody would pretty much be the definition of free expression, wouldn't it? Arguing whether unrestricted free expression is moral is a different topic than arguing over who is the least restricted.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 18, 2008 18:59:56 GMT -4
So are you saying that you have more freedom of speech in the U.S. because you can say anything about anybody and get away with it? Shouldn't there be some responsibility taken by each person in what he/she says or does? Or should anybody be able to be slandered at will? Being able to say anything about anybody would pretty much be the definition of free expression, wouldn't it? Arguing whether unrestricted free expression is moral is a different topic than arguing over who is the least restricted. Well, I was wondering after I posted about which society I would want to live in: 1. One in which, if I was slandered, the government would press charges against whoever slandered me or 2. One, in which, if I was slandered, I could sue whoever slandered me for damages. Ah, but life isn't really that simple.... And I would pick number two. I don't want the government involved in my personal life if I can help it. So, is number two your country? ;D A sidenote: About a month ago I had a message on my answering machine left by the Canada Revenue Agency ( our IRS). This made me nervous, but I called them back. They asked for my social insurance number, and then assured me that it was not in their database. They told me that they must be looking for another individual by the same name. Oh, and they also said, "..and that's a good thing." which kind of creeped me out.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Jun 18, 2008 19:33:38 GMT -4
I didn't say press freedom wasn't pertinent - it certainly is. What I was getting at is that there is a difference between the freedom of expression of the press and the freedom of expression of a private citizen. The press answers to editors and networks - they are an additional filter on what gets to the public beyond the strictly legal level. Therefore you can't exactly equate what gets into print or on TV on a network or newspaper with what can or can't be legally said. True. But freedom of expression in the press is a subset of freedom of expression. If there are restrictions on freedom of expression in the press, there must be restrictions on freedom of expression. I demonstrated that there are more restrictions on press freedom in the US than many other democracies. Now, I suppose it is true that there are more restrictions on non-press expression in these countries that more than balance this out, but I see no proof of that, especially since I feel it is reasonable to extrapolate to a certain extent from restrictions (or lack thereof) on the press to restrictions (or, again, lack thereof) on the general public. Well, based on the questionaire they use, it seems to me that the best way to compile the data they get from the questions they use would be to average the answers for every country. Which means that the more responses they get for a country, the more likely the survey is to be accurate for that country. I never disputed this anywhere. What's your point? Yeah, it is hard to do. But you haven't given any evidence to support your claim. Can you give me some? Your claim is more extraordinary than mine: I claim that the US isn't alone at the top of the list of countries as ranked by freedom of expression; you, I understand, claim that the US is indeed alone at the top and that all other countries have less freedom of expression. I've given evidence to back up my claim. Where's yours? I can agree with that. But the Index takes that into account. While it does include such things in its scoring of countries (its purpose is to measure limitations on freedom of the press from all sources), journalists killed by the state are counted twice - there would be a "yes" to the first question and a "yes" to the second. Also note that the Netherlands still managed to tie for 1st place in 2004, despite Theo van Gogh's murder. He was held because he was trying to get into Afghanistan as a cameraman for Al Jazeera. The US government claimed he was an Al Qaeda agent - but they released him. If there really was proof of the allegation, they wouldn't have let him go. There is question as to whether he was held because Al Jazeera has been hostile to the US in the past, and it would not have reported favourably on American operations. If true, that is definitely a restriction on freedom of expression. That's covered by the Geneva Conventions. Even if Al-Haj were an Al Qaeda agent, he wouldn't be since he would not be a uniformed combatant. Plus, what's the relevance? I'm sorry, that isn't true. The Ribicoff Amendment and the EAA do not say anything about the motivations for the boycott, just that you cannot participate in any such boycott (of any nature, actually, not just of Israel) if it is not "sanctioned" by the United States government: SourceThat's a pretty straightforward case of a restriction on freedom of expression by the government to me. Well, they aren't in the US, I suppose. In Canada, they sure are. There's your proof. Just as there are obvious and compelling reasons why you should be able to tell someone the FBI has requested, say, ISP records if the FBI is abusing NSLs - and we don't know if they are, because no one can tell us. Though the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation both allege there is abuse, based on documents obtained directly from the DOD and FBI. Oh, I never disputed that the US is one of the best. If you'll read what I wrote, you'll see that I say the United States is in the top tier of nations out there in this regard - that democracies all tend to have very similar track records in this area. What I object to is this claim, in the very first post of this thread: The US is in the top group, surely, but not at the very top, probably.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 19, 2008 0:55:11 GMT -4
I could say "I am expressing my contempt of government energy policy when I steal gasoline at my local station," or "I am expressing my radical Islamic religion when I crash airplanes into buildings," and it could be considered accurate in one sense, but obviously such criminal actions can't qualify as protected speech. You equate the non-act of withholding trade with actual acts of theft, hijacking, destruction of property, arson, and mass murder? An interesting position. Is it equally as criminal for, say, a business to refuse service to homosexuals? For pharmacists to engage in the non-act of not dispensing medications they find morally objectionable? If I am forced to do business with Israel in the U.S., but permitted not to do so in Iran, then the U.S. is less free.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 19, 2008 11:09:17 GMT -4
True. But freedom of expression in the press is a subset of freedom of expression. If there are restrictions on freedom of expression in the press, there must be restrictions on freedom of expression. I demonstrated that there are more restrictions on press freedom in the US than many other democracies. No you didn't. You presented an index created by reporters that gives an opinion on how much freedom the press has in the U.S. I do not accept that opinion as authoritative either as a measure of how free the press is or in how free a private citizen is. Reasonable, perhaps, but not authoritative. But is that in fact what they did? Was any investigation done to verify complaints as being factual? My point was that being unable to get your words into print or TV or radio because no one wants to give you a venue is not neccessarily a restriction on free speech. You didn't dispute it - I'm just heading off possible future arguments. I gave several examples of methods of expression I can do in the U.S. which I cannot in other countries. Are you disputing whether people have been cited for criticizing Islam or the homosexual lifestyle in Canda, or whether Nazi symbology is in fact illegal in Germany and Austria? I said the U.S. is probably more free than most European states. Then I listed some forms of expression I can't do in European states and Canada. Then I disagree with their methodology. If a state grants legal protections to free expression and enforces those, then violations of those protections that are committed by extremists and criminals should not be counted against a nation. That can't be proven. I reject this incident as an example of suppression of the press. At least, not without more evidence that the U.S. government was in fact trying to suppress whatever propoganda he could produce for Al Jazeera. As I said earlier, what could he do that wasn't already being done by many others? Again, I'm heading off possible future arguments. I stand corrected. As you say, the reason you might want to participate in a boycott doesn't matter to the law. Since we made the enforcement of free expression laws a point, do you happen to know how often this "no embargo against Israel" law has been enforced against U.S. companies? Only if you consider an economic boycott to be a form of expression that should be protected. I do not. "Allege" being the key word. Perhaps there is no abuse going on at all, and every National Secrutiy Letter is completely justified. The extraordinary claim that requires evidence here seems to be the idea that abuse is occurring. Well we both said "probably", so obviously there is room to explore the issue further.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 19, 2008 11:35:24 GMT -4
I could say "I am expressing my contempt of government energy policy when I steal gasoline at my local station," or "I am expressing my radical Islamic religion when I crash airplanes into buildings," and it could be considered accurate in one sense, but obviously such criminal actions can't qualify as protected speech. You equate the non-act of withholding trade with actual acts of theft, hijacking, destruction of property, arson, and mass murder? I'm categorizing them as acts that should not be considered forms of free expression, not equating them morally or criminally. I already said I don't consider a refusal of business to be protected speech. Therefore a business that refuses to deal with a particular class cannot claim protection of their action as an example of free expression. However, I believe a religious group should be able to refuse to deal with self-identified homosexuals on the grounds that it violates their freedom of religion to be forced to do so. And I believe that particular kinds of organizations such as fraternities or sororities should be allowed to exclude particular individuals or classes as part of the right of free assembly, such as the Boy Scouts excluding self-identified homosexuals as leaders or the U.S. military using "don't ask don't tell." Such refusals do not in my opinion constitute a restriction on freedom of expression. I think pharmacies should be able to refuse to carry any medication they find objectionable for whatever reason. I would not consider refusing to carry such medications to be necessarily an exercise of free speech, but the right of a business to control what merchandise it purchases and sells. Do you think all magazine stands everywhere should be forced to carry Playboy and Hustler? And that they are exercising free speech when they don't carry them? In an economic sense, yes. Not in the sense of free expression. The difference hinges on whether engaging in an economic boycott of a nation in the furtherance of other nation's foreign policy should be considered a form of protected expression. I don't think it should.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Jun 19, 2008 16:52:39 GMT -4
No you didn't. You presented an index created by reporters that gives an opinion on how much freedom the press has in the U.S. I do not accept that opinion as authoritative either as a measure of how free the press is or in how free a private citizen is. No, eh? A ranking based on reported instances of suppression of the press seems like a pretty good indicator to me. But what would you accept? The survey was sent not only to individual reporters but also to other NGOs and branch offices of Reporters Without Borders. I'm sure checking was done, and I'm sure that separate surveys from the same country were compared for consistency. Fine. We don't disagree here. No. But such laws exist in all democracies - that's my point. The FCC censors open-air broadcasts. "Indecent" pornography is covered by the First Amendment, but "obscene" pornography is not. The DMCA makes it troublesome for legitimate cryptanalysts to publish their work. The US government can regulate the time, place, and manner of expression, but not its content - these restrictions do not exist in Canada. Also, the Steyn incident is closer to a lawsuit than a criminal proceeding. The complainant is a private citizen, not the Crown. I could cite numerous private suits in the United States as well, if you'd like. Please. The purpose of the Index is to record press freedom, not just freedom from government. It is, however, weighted to give much more consideration to government suppression - again, the Netherlands was in first place the year Theo van Gogh was killed. He could put a negative spin on it. I'm just informing you that there is controversy here - since we can't prove intention one way or the other, I'll drop it. 10 last year, alone: SourceFirst, why not? Shouldn't you be allowed to personally boycott a movie theatre if they are playing a movie you think is morally suspect? Shouldn't you be able to personally boycott a store that sells birth control, if you oppose it? Why is it different when we're talking about a country? Second, it doesn't matter if you think it should be protected or not. The fact remains that it is not protected in the US, and it is in Canada. Right there is something you can do to express yourself in Canada but not the US. Well, we'll eventually find out. The ACLU has DOD and FBI documents that they have entered into court during their lawsuit. Whether they prove wrongdoing or not is for the court to decide. Until then, since the case is being heard and has not been thrown, I have to say that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is some actual possibility of misuse of NSLs, here. It isn't final, by any means, but there is a real, non-hypothetical possibility that it is true. From what I understand, you say the US is probably right at the top, alone. I say it probably isn't, but it is probably near the top, along with other nations.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 19, 2008 18:20:23 GMT -4
No, eh? A ranking based on reported instances of suppression of the press seems like a pretty good indicator to me. But what would you accept? The main problem I have with an index created by reporters about complaints in their occupation is that reporters in my experience tend to overinflate the importance of their occupation in the first place. The press is important, but far too many reporters seem to feel that their calling is to change the world to match their own biases. I rather suspect that one of the purposes in creating this particular index was to assign the U.S. a low rating. Granted they didn't assign it a ridiculously low rating, but I can't help but feel biases played a part, and I've already stated what I feel are valid questions about their methedology.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 19, 2008 18:52:12 GMT -4
Jason, if you feel that everyone is out to get the U.S. you'll be interested in this. The Chinese are infiltrating your country not from the underdwellings of New York, but right in your Home! youtube.com/watch?v=e-LOtKIIKcg
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Jun 19, 2008 23:23:23 GMT -4
I'm not sure that the assassination of Van Gogh had any bearing on the score. He wasn't a journalist. He was what we call an opinion maker, and a political activist.
The bad score for the Netherlands last year was because of a single incident.
Two journalists were taken hostage by the court to pressure them in revealing the name of a source who had provided them with classified police documents. (The rational for this is that this source is either a witness or a criminal, and protecting his/her identity constitutes protecting a criminal.) The decision was overturned by a higher court within 48 hours, setting a new, stronger precedent, making such a thing less likely to occur in the future.
So the affair actually ended with the independence of the fourth estate strengthened.
|
|