Well, what about that guy who was arrested and jailed for holding a sign critical of the President? The excuse was that he was somehow dangerous but people with signs favorable to the President are OK. So, I would say that, yes, you can be jailed for criticizing the President.
Patriot Act II
garius:
Dead to rights, my man. Dead to rights. Especially in places like the Midwest and the South, where political conservatism runs deep and questioning a conservative president’s actions can be seen as tantamount to treason by the locals.
Which leads me to my next point:
Neeps and gcarrol: Your brother apparently lives in a rather conservative area. America’s full of them, and the effect could be rather shocking to one brought up to expect the liberality of Western Europe. America isn’t completely conservative-ridden, however: The coasts tend to be much more liberal (southern California particularly) and in the west people don’t really care about your politcal persuasion so long as you aren’t rude about voicing it.
As a case in point, I’m a Libertarian (something that really doesn’t exist in Europe these days, I’m lead to believe, more’s the pity), and don’t fall into the traditional left-right/liberal-conservative spectrum. I advocate a minimal government ruled by a strong Constitution and frequent referenda, completely abhor both restrictive gun laws and drug laws, and am not shy about telling my opinions at length to anyone who asks. Nobody here (in the western state of Montana) has accused me of treason or not being patriotic or even looked askance. I’m of the notion that few really agree with me, but nobody feels it their place to `bring me in line.’ So region makes a definite difference.
Now, a clarification: Is it the case that there is no specific British legal text that enshrines the right to free speech? In the Bill of Rights of 1689 it says this:
Could that be used as a part of a successful pro-free speech argument, or is it limited to debates in Parliament?
And a final question before I post this mess: What does MP stand for?
MP = Member of Parliament.
Ah, ok. Thanks.
This should surprise nobody. After all, the First Continental Congress ended up in a petition for redress and restoration of the colonists’ ancient rights as free Englishmen (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/resolves.htm).
It was only after the Government dismissed their petition for recovery and protection of their English rights that they came to the conclusion that this Government had abdicated its legitimacy by refusing to live up to the guarantees of such documents as the Bill of Rights of 1689.
Give the specific day upon which this became law.
You will not, of course, since this “act” has never even made it to the floor of the House or Senate for debate. Saying that this is the law of the USA is about as pig-ignorant as can be imagined.
In the USA, the number of Representatives is fixed at 435. The number of senators is fixed at two per state.
We have a population in excess of 250,000,000 people. If even a very small percentage of them bother to write to Congress–you can do the math.
Ah, but that was the act that placed the US on Double Secret Probation.
Could that be used as a part of a successful pro-free speech argument, or is it limited to debates in Parliament?
This refers only to ‘parliamentary privilege’; immunity within Parliamentary debate from civil action over allegations that would be slanderous under other circumstances. To be honest, I’ve never quite grasped what the US constitutional guarantee provides, since whatever the theory, the practical limitations on freedom of speech seem little different from here: slander, libel, inciting or planning a crime, breach of contract (e.g. non-disclosure agreements), breach of national security, etc.
Relevant links:
Indy Media:
http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2003/06/5414_comment.php
White House:
http://www.house.gov/frank/scprotester2003.html
That’s as cut and dried a violation of freedom of speech as any.
As for Britons being able to criticise their government, just read our tabloids 
Bliar seems to be a popular play on the name of Blair, especially from the Sun.
Ah, OK. I think we have something like that in the US.
It is complex, and each Supreme Court wants it to mean something just a little bit different. Basically, it comes down to this: Congress (the legislative branch) cannot pass any laws that restrict the content of speech (prior restraint) unless someone can override the Constitutional guarantee with a damned good reason why a specific topic isn’t fit discussion. National security fits in that rubric, as does speech meant to cause immediate criminal action (planning a specific crime). Unless a topic has been specifically declared out of bounds by clear legal action, it’s fair game.
Of course, you mention libel and slander. Those twin crimes are related to someone lying about someone else in a damaging way. Libel and slander aren’t protected speech simply because respecting some yahoo’s `right’ to damage someone with lies is absurd on its face. It’s far better to protect the person those lies are aimed at, but only if that person can prove actual damages. And the burden of proof grows higher in proportion to the fame (or notoriety) of the wronged person. For example, I could say things about Michael Jackson that would earn me a lawsuit were I to say them about my town’s governor. And, of course, the truth is an absolute defense: If I’m telling the truth, I can say anything about anyone.
Finally, you bring up NDAs (Non-Disclosure Agreements). NDAs are contracts, not laws. People enter into NDAs with the knowledge that they may face civil penalties if they breach them because a breach of an NDA is a breach of a contract. The government isn’t going to enforce anyone’s NDAs for them.
Which leads me to my final point, which has been implied all along: The Constitution only applies to goverments, not people. Individual people can restrict each others’ speech all they want (within the bounds of the law). For example, the SDMB has banned jerkish behavior. Being a jerk is a cherished right over here (look at Howard Stern) and is in no way illegal. Try it here, however, and you won’t last long. Why? The SDMB is privately owned and may abide by its own private rules which need not bear any resemblance to the Constitution or anything else, for that matter.
I can’t imagine that the situation in Britian could be much different.
One thing that helps explain a great deal is that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were in part written in reaction against flaws an abuses in Great Britain’s colonial adminstration and flaws in the government/parliament of Great Britain at the end of the 18th century. Since the reign of Farmer George, these flaws have been addressed and rectified evolutionarily within Great Britain (later the UK). In the USA, the idea was to fix everything perceived as a problem at the time all at once.
Many people in the United States associate criticizing the government with disloyalty to the nation. This is particularly true when there is a Republican in the White House, and the situation becomes more extreme when U. S. troops are in the line of fire.
Before the war in Iraq became officially “over” I heard a number of people say, angrily, that people who had opposed the invasion should now stop criticizing the effort and “support our troops”. I asked one man whom I overheard saying this if people who thought it was wrong for our troops to have been put in danger in the first place weren’t, in fact, supporting them by saying they shouldn’t be there at risk. He didn’t have an answer for that.
I remember when I was a boy and the Vietnam War was raging, any number of people had bumper stickers on their cars saying “My Country Right or Wrong”. IMHO Mark Twain’s essay denouncing this phrase and upholding freedom of speech should be required reading for school children.
The phrase, a cornerstone of a kind of 200% All-American Americanism, is prominently associated with two famous figures in history. Naval hero Stephen Decatur is said to have said it while making a toast. It is also said that some of the people present at the time later disputed that he said and that, by that time in the festivities, he must have been awfully loaded. It was committed to print by Carl Schurz, an otherwise little-remembered statesman, and he is almost invariably quoted out of context. He in fact said “My country right or wrong; when it right, to be kept right, and when it is wrong, to be put right”.
There is also a federal law against sedition in the U.S., passed back in the days when John Adams was president. It makes it a crime to criticize the government “too severely”, and it is almost never enforced.
I think you are referring to the Sedition Act, an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917, passed in 1918, which effectively made it illegal to criticize government action during time of war. However, the law is no longer on the books, and has not been for over fifty years, if memory serves. The rest of your post was spot on though.
I used to think that narrow-minded right-wingers had a corner on blind pig-ignorance. This board has shown me to be so wrong.
The Alien and Sedition Act of 1789 was so unpopular that it caused the Federalists to lose the White House in the 1800 presidential election. The Act had a built-in expiration of March 3, 1801 (which, at the time was at or very near the date at which the President elected in 1800 would take office).
(http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/statutes/sedact.htm)
Thus, this Act has not been in force for 200 years, six months, and twelve days. So much for a daft and ignorant claim that this law is still on the books.
I used to believe that the Left had a higher preponderance of educated people than did the Right. I now realize that liberal ignoramoids merely use fancier words in their spew.
Technically, he appears to have been jailed for criticizing the President, a point which I concede. However, the arrest was unlawful. My point is that there is no law prohibiting it; it is a constitutional guarantee, and I trust the courts will find this way, just as they did in 1969. We’re screwed if they don’t.
You only have to listen to the Sex Pistols album to know that criticizing even the crown is not a jailable offence. That’s from 1977, too.
Sure it does - the judicial branch of government will enforce NDAs, if they are properly drafted. The aggrieved party to the contract has to take the inititative by starting a civil suit, but if they prove their case, then the judicial branch of government will issue an order enjoining the other party to obey the NDA. If the other party then fails to comply, all sorts of penalties can be triggered, including, in severe cases, criminal sanctions for breach of a court order.