Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Stopping the KKK from speaking would be downright fascist. I would hate to live in a place where you could not deny the holocaust or say soandso ethnic group are subhumans and to do so would mean one would face fines or jail. Scary are those countries in Europe punish free thought.
You will need to explain this. Courts make rulings based on laws of the particular level of government that court represents so they are part of the government, not independent.
Judges and courts can have different interpretations of the law and one court can overturn what another court has established. This is why Italian justice system is quite slow but on the flip side every crime is analyzed to the extent that it's hard that any mistakes will be made.
So, even though, courts have to make rulings based on laws of the particular level of government that court represents, two or more courts can have different opinions on a matter. Aside from that, it's rare that it's the government to start an enquiry but it's usually a court which independently from the government starts one
Judges and courts can have different interpretations of the law and one court can overturn what another court has established. This is why Italian justice system is quite slow but on the flip side every crime is analyzed to the extent that it's hard that any mistakes will be made.
So, even though, courts have to make rulings based on laws of the particular level of government that court represents, two or more courts can have different opinions on a matter. Aside from that, it's rare that it's the government to start an enquiry but it's usually a court which independently from the government starts one
Maybe in Italy this is true but in the US courts are a branch of government as previously stated and they do not inquire anything independently. Cases are brought to the courts by either private parties or government. At the local level, we have civil courts. State laws have state Superior and State Supreme Courts. There are then Federal Courts. The US Supreme Court interprets the law through the US constitution. The US constitution is the only thing that can stop a law or reverse a law. Even if states and federal government have conflicting laws, both can stand. Only if the Supreme Courts deems one as unconstitutional can it be nullifies.
So, if for example California decided to pass a law banning hate speech, the law will be challenged and taken through the court system. The courts would then decide that it violate the first amendment of the constitution and the law will be nullified. This is how the courts work in the US. They don't inquire themselves so much as hear cases brought to them by various parties.
Maybe in Italy this is true but in the US courts are a branch of government as previously stated and they do not inquire anything independently. Cases are brought to the courts by either private parties or government. At the local level, we have civil courts. State laws have state Superior and State Supreme Courts. There are then Federal Courts. The US Supreme Court interprets the law through the US constitution. The US constitution is the only thing that can stop a law or reverse a law. Even if states and federal government have conflicting laws, both can stand. Only if the Supreme Courts deems one as unconstitutional can it be nullifies.
So, if for example California decided to pass a law banning hate speech, the law will be challenged and taken through the court system. The courts would then decide that it violate the first amendment of the constitution and the law will be nullified. This is how the courts work in the US. They don't inquire themselves so much as hear cases brought to them by various parties.
Sorry, it may seem that the US system would require a reform for it to happen. At this point, i think it isn't worth the hassle. I guess the discussion's settled now, i'm glad to have opened this thread because it made me notice the differences between the laws, systems, thoughts, ecc. even amongst Western countries
Maybe in Italy this is true but in the US courts are a branch of government as previously stated and they do not inquire anything independently. Cases are brought to the courts by either private parties or government. At the local level, we have civil courts. State laws have state Superior and State Supreme Courts. There are then Federal Courts. The US Supreme Court interprets the law through the US constitution. The US constitution is the only thing that can stop a law or reverse a law. Even if states and federal government have conflicting laws, both can stand. Only if the Supreme Courts deems one as unconstitutional can it be nullifies.
So, if for example California decided to pass a law banning hate speech, the law will be challenged and taken through the court system. The courts would then decide that it violate the first amendment of the constitution and the law will be nullified. This is how the courts work in the US. They don't inquire themselves so much as hear cases brought to them by various parties.
In Finland the government and parliament aren't considered legal subjects, so they cannot bring forward a case more than your dog could, they can only propose, which they give to the president, who propose the draft as an institution to the Supreme Administrative Court. Neither is the President of Finland a legal subject, he/she drops it for exhange of immunity of prosecution. Parliamentary groups (a group which has all MP's of a certain party) however are legal subjects, but as all our governments are coalition governments, it's unheard of for them to bring up an enquiry. The Republic of Finland is a legal subject of course, but as we don't have a constitutional court, there is nobody who can act in the name of the Republic.
It's always up to an individual, the police, the Chancellor of Justice or the district prosecutor's office to make a case.
Quite on the contrary, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court are often stating to politicans that "don't try to create this law, we would be throw it back to you as it breaks laws X or Y". The SC and SAC are free to enquiry whatever judicial matter they please, and they are not relinquishing any of their power. I think it was just some months ago when the SAC said publicly about some change in some law by the government that "drop it, it breaches the constitution". I think it was something about basic income.
As I said, we don't have a Constitutional Court, maybe we should, as the constitution is upheld by the supreme courts and the Constitutional Committee (which is controlled by MP's), guarding themselves themself. Anyway,
So long story short, in our justice system it's impossible to make the courts a rubber stamp doing anything that the government says or feels.
I'm not a lawyer, so the post might have some semantic errors, but this is how it works in Roman-Germanic Civil Law.
Sorry but this is incredibly ignorant. European Union is constantly criticized by the far left, by the far right and anything in between. Even the staunchest supporters of the EU have criticized some of its aspects in one way or another.
What's harmful to society may be vague at times but independent courts are free to start an evaluation on their own and at the end only the most harsh declarations will end in either a fine, bans from public offices (it must be something really harsh) or the breakup of a political organization.
For example, in Italy you can't form a Fascist or Nazist party due to the country's past, in the same way it would make sense for the USA if there would be a similar law that would at least be limiting the activity of white supremacist movements.
It isn't the freaking government decides what you say, it's independent court who exhamine the laws and constitute what is hate speech or not. I guess this concept is lost on Americans
1) Who writes the laws the courts interpret? The lawmakers aka..... the government.
2) If you legislate speech you don't have..... freedom of speech.
And I'm not American, I'm British. And for the final time - if you limit speech you don't have freedom of speech.
Let me make it more simple so you might get it. If the Uffizi announces free entry but charges you 1 euro. You ain't got "free entry." Capisce?
Jeezus H Christ.
Edit: btw, Britain does not have freedom of speech. It has freer speech than many countries, most in fact, but does not have the freedom of speech as it exists in the US.
I agree with you- we are "too free" in some instances. There should be consequences for these idiots, and I disagree that their "rights" to act and speak accordingly are important.
I agree with you- we are "too free" in some instances. There should be consequences for these idiots, and I disagree that their "rights" to act and speak accordingly are important.
In other words "I want limits on speech"
Which is fine - but call it what it is.
Now, I see you mention acts. There is no freedom of acts concept, actions are limited in every society. Especially where that action involves another person.
1) Who writes the laws the courts interpret? The lawmakers aka..... the government.
2) If you legislate speech you don't have..... freedom of speech.
The government might draft a law, but that doesn't mean that the constitutional courts would legalise that law.
Sure, freedom of speech is limited, but considering Europe's history, I think that is quite a "not so bad" thing. As I said, most speech that breaches the freedom of speech is not worth even listening to. It becames dangerous when criticism is banned, but European countries or the US are not on this path.
Russia plans to ban criticism of Putin. That is dangerous.
The government might draft a law, but that doesn't mean that the constitutional courts would legalise that law.
Sure, freedom of speech is limited, but considering Europe's history, I think that is quite a "not so bad" thing. As I said, most speech that breaches the freedom of speech is not worth even listening to. It becames dangerous when criticism is banned, but European countries or the US are not on this path.
Russia plans to ban criticism of Putin. That is dangerous.
The constituonal court in the US is the Supreme Court. It interprets the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land. And which can be amended by lawmakers when ratified by lawmakers in a sufficient number of states. The Sups get to decide if a law is constituonal, but they never get to write the law.
There is a difficulty in having freedom of speech. But you can just ignore unsavory free speech. Legislating about speech (or about thought as some countries do!) is one answer, but that doesn't leave you with freedom of speech. You may have freer speech than others, but it is still limited.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
