Fandom Forums - View Single Post - US Ambassador in Libya Killed
View Single Post
Old 09-14-2012, 07:31 PM   #42
Tzu Men
hostis humani generis
Tzu Men's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 713
Thanks: 4,008
Thanked 2,697 Times in 854 Posts
Tzu Men is a jewel in the roughTzu Men is a jewel in the roughTzu Men is a jewel in the roughTzu Men is a jewel in the roughTzu Men is a jewel in the roughTzu Men is a jewel in the rough
Re: US Ambassador in Libya Killed

Originally Posted by Vanity View Post
One of the issues with a greater restriction on freedom of speech is how to word such a restriction: What is the baselines limitations [such as inciting a riot, or being the direct cause of harming others]? What is the line between offense and national security? When is it going against our constitution, or when is it too loose, making it nearly impossible to enforce? Is there going to be a screening for everything of this nature? Who's job will it be to filter speech? How is this going to affect taxes?

This would need to be an amendment and those are excruciatingly difficult to attain.
Yeah, having a constitution makes that difficult.

Our system in the UK certainly has definite flaws, but because law is decided largely by precedent we circumvent shit like that...

(At least as I understand it...)

A written law might have dangerous loopholes or points for exploitation within it, but when the law is enacted in court the judgement decides the precedent of how the law is applied. And the judge's decision is usually affected by the jury and it is decided via legal reasoning.

We've had some very dodgy anti-terrorism laws since Blair and Afghanistan happened but if those laws are challenged successfully in court they'll be crippled from going awry again because the judge will set a precedent on that law's application. And you can challenge laws a ridiculous number of times because of the UK and EU courts.

Furthermore, since the government hasn't got to apply for an amendment it's pretty straightforward for them to add new laws that limit previous ones, or rip old laws out entirely. So anything against public opinion is pretty easy to terminate.

Our system gets shit though because in the last two decades or so governments have been making hundreds of laws which have appendices that are thousands of pages long and full of contradictions. You can twist the meaning of the same law to do two things at once - and the judges are completely overloaded by it.
Tzu Men is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Tzu Men For This Useful Post:
Darth-Nero (09-15-2012), Miburo (09-14-2012), Numinous (09-15-2012), Vanity (09-14-2012)