|
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.
|
|
|
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 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.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Jun 17, 2008 15:45:40 GMT -4
Well, let's start with some hard data. I'll go with data from the Worldwide Press Freedom Index compiled annually by Reporters Without Borders. Canada ranked 18th in 2007 (down from 2006) and the US ranked 48th (up from 2006). Iceland was first and Eritrea was last. SourceNow, if you look at the data (handily compiled in this world map on Wikipedia), you'll see that what I'm saying is pretty accurate. Functioning democracies tend to score on the blue side of the scale, developing democracies in the middle, and non-democracies on the red side of the scale. If you look at the ranking list itself, you'll see that the top twenty countries are all democracies, are mostly European (with a smattering of North American and Pacific), and there are many nations tied for the same position - that is to say, they have comparable levels of freedom of expression. Here is the methodology used in compiling the index. Now, to compare the US and Canada: There were slightly fewer press freedom violations in the United States (48th) and blogger Josh Wolf was freed after 224 days in prison. But the detention of Al-Jazeera’s Sudanese cameraman, Sami Al-Haj, since 13 June 2002 at the military base of Guantanamo and the murder of Chauncey Bailey in Oakland in August mean the United States is still unable to join the lead group. Compared to: Now, to specifics. You can't support a boycott of Israel under the 1977 amendments to the US Tax Reform Act: Conduct that may be penalized under the TRA and/or prohibited under the EAR includes: * Agreements to refuse or actual refusal to do business with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies. * Agreements to discriminate or actual discrimination against other persons based on race, religion, sex, national origin or nationality. * Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about business relationships with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies. * Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of another person. Implementing letters of credit containing prohibited boycott terms or conditions. The TRA does not "prohibit" conduct, but denies tax benefits ("penalizes") for certain types of boycott-related agreements. Penalties are harsh: SourceThe use of National Security Letters is also troublesome. They subpoena information related to, well, most things since the PATRIOT Act. They are tied to a gag order that makes it illegal for the recipient of the letter to admit it exists, which is a bit of a stumbling block for due process. Now, I'm not saying any of this to demonize the US. I'd classify the United States in the top tier of countries when it comes to freedom of expression. There isn't much value in a list like the one I provided, I don't think, except to show that there are different categories - countries will vary naturally from year to year. Canada was in 16th in 2006 and in 21st in 2005. The US was in 53rd in 2006 and in 44th in 2005. Countries seem to fall within a band of rankings pretty consistently over the short term. My point in showing the rankings was to say that the US is not alone in the top tier by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it's at the low end of the top tier. That isn't to say that freedom of expression is severely restricted in the US, just that it doesn't top the list, and that, to answer your question, Canada is consistently significantly higher up the list.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Jun 17, 2008 14:34:43 GMT -4
Ah, the Steyn thing, eh? Yeah, the problem here is the "Human Rights Commissions." They aren't actually courts of law and normal legal defences don't apply. But you can appeal to an actual federal court. So the problem isn't as big as it seems, though I'd like to see the things done away with.
Interestingly, Canada has a much broader right to expression than the US, in theory. Expression is defined as any attempt to convey meaning short of violence - not so in the US. Of course, Section 1 comes into it from there, but aside from aberrations like this Steyn mess, most Western democracies have comparable rights to free expression. In other words, I dispute that the US is alone at the top.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Feb 21, 2008 21:38:00 GMT -4
Not sure. It really only came up when we were being taught evolution.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Feb 21, 2008 20:44:59 GMT -4
(You ever notice how often we agree about things?) Yes, funny, that. Kind of nice, actually. It also bears pointing out that there are certain Catholic sects (schismatic or not) that don't think Genesis is just allegory. There's Mel Gibson's church (rejects Vatican II), and even elements of the mainstream Roman Catholic Church: in high school, I found a book in the school library about evolution. It might actually have been On the Origin of Species. Anyway, the principal had written "This book does not accord with the teachings of the Church" inside of its front cover. So there's that.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Feb 21, 2008 20:27:05 GMT -4
The Catholic Church has updated its position (I used to be Catholic, and went to Catholic schools). Now they teach the creation stories in Genesis as nothing more than myth and allegory - they adhere to the scientific explanations (i.e. evolution, not creationism).
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Feb 21, 2008 16:54:22 GMT -4
Fine, I'll drop it. I just wanted to register my views. Carry on.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Feb 21, 2008 16:36:55 GMT -4
Yes, but it's no less valid.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Feb 21, 2008 16:07:14 GMT -4
The problem with that is that the human brain is a funny thing. Just because you think something is real doesn't make it so. You need objective proof.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Feb 21, 2008 14:09:56 GMT -4
Another possibility is that there is no God. In which case, inconsistencies in the Bible don't matter.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Feb 20, 2008 19:19:14 GMT -4
Well, I'm going to enter this one late. I voted "no." I'm an atheist.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Mar 10, 2008 0:15:45 GMT -4
Actually, UPC codes are always 6 or 12 digits long. EAN-13 barcodes are 13 digits long, but that is because all EAN-13 codes starting with a zero are read as 12 digit UPC codes. Presumably the EAN standard was implemented to increase the number of possible codes (admittedly, that last is an assumption on my part, but I think it makes sense).
So, nothing sinister there.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on May 21, 2005 15:31:42 GMT -4
I am Canadian. You think you see this as confusing, we get both the Brit dd/mm/yy and the American mm/dd/yy used here. The only unambiguous dates are those that occur after the 12th of any particular month ;D Ugh. Tell me about it. I simply refuse to use the numers only format.
|
|