Re: The Right to Free Speech
OK point taken, Subversive Literature probably does have its place as a catalyst to wake real people up who take a stand publicly. Subversive Literature by itself does nothing. People talking in code to avoid detection, agreed when this is used to good effect it works.
I asked about the London Riots, that were borne out of a so called peaceful protest. Most people decided to protest anonymously, masked up just like the student (University Tuition) protests.
My second point asked what Anonymous had done, havent really found out yet other than annoy people they havent really changed anything have they?
Correct Assange wasnt being annonymous the person supplying him the information was trying (doing a bad job of it too!) to be anonymous, but do you think if he had just been saying nasty things about the government they would of even bothered with him. Or do you think he got caught because he was doing something illegal??
You quote "American" law at me then, something which has no relevance to either my comments or the article in question.
Granted the Junius pamphlets did a hell of a lot for reforming the way most of Europe deal with things politically and democratically and they were written anonymously. But they didnt abuse people on the basis of their religion did they?
Since you just jumped to conclusions regarding what I had typed and obviously didn't read it, heres a quick summary
Freedom = Do what you want!
Law = Stop the bits of freedom that may hurt people!
Hopefully that was nice and simple for you, you dumb fuck!! (< see now Im insulting you as part of a political discussion, doesnt make it any less insulting though does it??)
"Or do you just assume that the law would naturally base itself on what you happen to find offensive in particular, and not consider that your political speech may be someone else's blasphemy?"
Nope I dont assume this at all, since I can find it written down in law I have no need to assume this>> See below stunningly relevant (unlike your law quotes) to this article law (that I have previously quoted and has obviously been ignored)
"The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".
Its that last line that gives me (and coincidentally all the right to find offense in what people say "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health and morals"
Does the following mean (in your own words) they don't deserve to call themselves free nations?
Here is the corresponding American Law (take note of Para 2 parts a and b, look familiar?)
Article 13. Freedom of Thought and Expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive,
and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the
form of art, or through any other medium of one's choice.
2. The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall not be subject to prior censorship but
shall be subject to subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly established by law to the extent
necessary to ensure:
a. respect for the rights or reputations of others; or
b. the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals.
3. The right of expression may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of
government or private controls over newsprint, radio broadcasting frequencies, or equipment used in the
dissemination of information, or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of
ideas and opinions.
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2 above, public entertainments may be subject by law to prior
censorship for the sole purpose of regulating access to them for the moral protection of childhood and
5. Any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitute incitements
to lawless violence or to any other similar action against any person or group of persons on any grounds