Europeans and government control

In My Humble Opinion
21

It was, under the Smith Act, which makes it illegal to be a member of a group that advocates the violent overthrow of the government. The Supreme Court has since narrowed the scope of the Smith Act, though.

It also was illegal in Massachussetts (might still be), Arkansas (again, might still be…there was a lawsuit to get the law overturned two years ago, but I don’t know the result) and Louisiana. (which made possession or distribution of Communist propaganda punishable by up to 6 years in prison) I think other states have/had similar laws.

22

In a lot of countries, Nazi parties are outlawed, as is possession of Nazi symbolism.

23

Oh, and that thing about monarchies… most (if not all) of Europe´s kings and queens have no real power, so what´s the big deal about that?
What is a shame here in Spain is that it´s illegal to create a republican party.

24

Being European and all that heres a quick Q, Are u sure we need permisiion to fly our flags??

Whenever any sporting event takes place [say the Football World Cup] you will find lots of flags flying from peoples houses! and if its localised sporting events like in Ireland the G.A.A. you will often find the county colours flying from the same homes.

Ive never noticed any restrictions on my freedom here in Europe.

25

It used to be illegal to fly the tricolour in the north of Ireland … that was an atypical situation obviously.

26

I realize I’m generalizing way wide by using “Europeans”, but there honestly seems to be a mindset that freedoms are what the government says they are, instead of what the people say.

There’s a Reagan quote that is brought to mind: “It was made clear from the beginning that the citizenry would allow the government certain rights – rights would not flow from the government to the people; it would be the other way around.”

Also, yes, I was thinking about things like France prosecuting Yahoo for allowing French people to buy Nazi historical items over the internet. I can’t even imagine that happening here. I once blew a German guy’s mind by telling him that it was not illegal to be a Nazi in the U.S.

27

The illegality of Nazi parties and Nazi parafernalia came into existence mostly out of respect for those who had fallen at the hand of the Nazis, or indeed survived. I doubt these laws will be in effect forever (they exist in my country, too), but in the appropriate context they certainly served a valid purpose, IMHO. Whether they continue to do so now, is debatable.

Then again, who the hell wants to be a Nazi?

The laws are being applied less strictly by the years, by the way. It used to be illegal to own a copy of Mein Kampf here. It technically still is, but I’ve seen them in many bookshops. They won’t be in the shop window, mind.

As for the general amount of freedom a citizen has on either side of the pond, I’d say we’re about on par. Although you ‘Murrikens might be slippin’ a bit, what with all the new fancy laws we’ve seen since 9/11.

28

Yeah, that might be true somewhat.

I seem also to remember some shock that publishing the catalog at www.loompanics.com was legal in the U.S. There’s another example.

Look, when everyone admits that I’m right, the sooner we can let this all go.

:stuck_out_tongue:

29

If you wonder about sensitivity to Nazi symbols in Europe, you might ask how a Taliban party might fare in the U.S. If it wouldn’t be outright prohibited, it would probably meet a lot of resistance.

30

The thing about these kind of comparisons is that you only complain about the freedoms that get taken away, not the ones you’ve never had. From a European perspective, lots of American restrictions seem odd. A few things that spring to mind.

  • 21 year drinking age
  • very low speed limit on roads.
  • sensitivity to flag burning (is this still prohibited?)
    Furthermore criminal law is from a European perspective rather oppressive: the death penalty and three-strike laws that exist in numerous states do not fare well in the legal environment (to be fair though, a significant propertion of the population might be in favor of those).

I’d add the very strict attitude against prostitution and soft drugs, if I would be sure about how other European countries look at it (The Netherlands still seems to be the most ‘free’ or liberal in that respect).

Furthermore if I’m correct, there is a problem in comparing freedoms, that you have federal regulations and state laws. Even if the federal government allows it, the state may still put in additional restrictions (except insofar these violate constitutional rights). So you could well compare the most liberal U.S. state to Europea, which would not be exactly fair if there are lots of U.S. states having restrictive laws.

hence I’m afraid yours is more of a perceptual problem. I’m not saying the U.S. is a bad country for these reasons, just that you can never compare properly. In many European’s eyes, Americans are far to moralistic in their laws, which to us looks like an undesirable state of affairs.

31

One last post: if I understand you correctly Cardinal, you wonder in particular about the government telling people what to do or not to do. This points in a major divergence between U.S. and European political philosophy.

In Europe, the democratic idea has taken firm root. Hence people identify strongly with the government. It’s not the case of the government telling us what to do, but the people trying to arrange their own society through their chosen representatives. Of course, we still have to respect basic human rights, but the thrust of laws and prohibitions is different. If the democratic majority wants it, it can be done.

In contrast, the U.S. is a federation with only limited authority over the states. So people are continually saying that the federal government doesn’t have the authority to do this or that. AFAIK however, the state government does not have those kind of limitations. Don’t people identify with their state government?

So you may well find yourself being misled by political rhetoric. In the end, the U.S. (federal and state) government is empowered to put in lots of restrictions, as long as they find the proper justification. Safety seems to be a good one, right now.

32

Spogga said ‘put up a flagpole and fly the union flag.’ (emphasis mine). If this is true, it would be the flagpole which would be the problem, rather than the flag. A flagpole is a rather large item to have in your garden, and it would obscure your neighbours’ view. Remember that England is a much smaller country physically than the US, and our properties are generally much smaller. You’d need planning permission to erect any large structure on your property.

However, even then it depends on your neighbours and your local authority. There is one house near here which does have a large flagpole flying the Union Jack - and it’s right next to a Sikh temple. If the neighbours haven’t complained, the council generally won’t intervene.

Sticking a flag on your car, in your window, anywhere it doesn’t cause a nuisance, most definitely is totally legal and is done all the time.

So Spogga is wrong. Also, this comment:

smacks rather sharply of racism.

As for the rest - it really depends which country in Europe you’re talking about. You can’t lump it all in together - you can’t take one ‘oppressive’ law from Germany (banning of the Nazi party), another from France and another from the UK and say that Europe is oppressive. You can’t mix ingredients from different dishes together and then complain that it tastes bad. The Nazi party isn’t banned in Britain, for example. France has some strict laws governing language, but the rest of the continent doesn’t. Portugal has really weird regulations on how you can name your child, but it’s unique in Europe in that respect.

If all the European countries had all these oppressive laws, then you’d have a point, but they don’t.

Same goes in the US, when it’s to do with criminal cases or national security.

Only in Germany and a couple of neighbouring countries, for good historical reasons.

Really? picks up phone to grass up neighbours and that stupid woman at the school Yay oppressive laws! :smiley:

I’m not sure about the rest of Europe, but in the UK it isn’t illegal as such. It could lead to an employee losing their job (but that’s company rules, not national law), and if it accompanies physical violence then the charge would change from GBH (grevious bodily harm) to racially-aggravated GBH. But the actual words themselves aren’t illegal. If they were, it would be illegal to watch MTV!

33

Regarding attitudes to flags, I’m not sure how most people feel about it these days, but in the 1970’s the Union Jack was used extensively by the BNP and similar groups. It still makes me think of jingoism, racism and nationalsism - I have no desire to wrap myself in the thing. It has it’s place as a national identifier (ships, government buildings, etc), but waving it around - eh. I don’t see flag waving as patriotic, more a sign that the wavee has turned off their brain.

Moving on to freedoms - the USA is a bit worrying in that regard at the moment. Under the broad banner of ‘The War on Terrorism’ haven’t quite a few people been stripped of their rights to due process? Guantanamo Bay aside, hasn’t this happened to a couple of folk in the states as well?

Something else that struck me as curious about this thread is the apparant difference in the definition of ‘liberal’ - I’m getting the impression that it has repressive connotations across the pond that it just doesn’t have over here. Liberal to me, means /less/ repressive government, not more repressive. Curious.

34

I can. Selling something as relatively benign as Cuban cigars to the US market will have you in front of a judge for violating the Helms-Burton law faster than you can say “I can’t imagine this happening here.” And, of course, the sodomy laws are in fact still on the books - I’d consider that a much larger intrusion in my private life.<shrug> It’s what you’re used to. Here in LA, I can’t have a cold beer on the beach, and you don’t want to hear my opinion on that…
In a broader perspective, the US is in the luxurious position of having less historical luggage to cart around, starting with a clean slate around the Enlightenment. Quite a few European countries have instead had to modify a body of law that stretches back half a millenium or more before that, and of course that’ll leave you with some scar tissue here and there.

35

Spiny Norman, I’m not sure what you’re talking about with respect to the law.

If you mean civil law: U.S. law started with a firm basis in British common law, which harks back to the Middle Ages. It has never been reformed. Continental civil law is based on Roman law, true, but this has been transcended by the codifications which took place after the Enlightenment. So continental common law is actually of more recent date than U.S. law.

If you are talking about criminal law: the specific things that are forbidden or not are highly mutable. AFAIK the U.S. didn’t differ very much from Europe in its criminal law at the time of the Independence. Since then there have been so many changes in the specific things that are forbidden or have become allowed, that the history is next to irrelevant. AFAIK both in Europe and the U.S. history plays no role in determining whether to prohibit something or not: the decision is made solely on the basis of things like expediency, public policy, safety, and current morality.

BTW, you gave some excellent examples.

36

Which, as many people do not understand, does not infringe on a persons civil liberties in the slightest.
Freedom of association is guaranteed in the Constitution.

37

I made a mess of that, didn’t I ? I guess what I’m trying to say is that the US had some very fine minds sit down and define what the basis of law ought to be from scratch. There’s a (relatively) clearly written document lining up what the philosophy behind lawmaking ought to be. Clean break, well-defined philosophy. Firm ground when debating whether a law is in accordance with the Constitution or not. (That a lot of the actual laws were kept on the books just seems practical - continuity in laws is a good thing. )

Whereas some older countries, particularly those that never lived though a revolution, never really had a chance to write down what the guiding philosophy behind their lawmaking process ought to be. Using (again) Denmark as the example, there’s never been that clear a break between the 1241 Law of Jutland and the laws of todays constitutional monarchy. Sure, the role of monarch & nobility has changed, but even the 1849 constitution that introduced parliamentarism was “given by the king”. Noone ever got around to defining what ideals ought to be the foundation for the parliament’s work and looking over the existing laws to figure out what perhaps does not mesh in with the ideals. And so weird laws stay on the books, sometimes with unintended consequences.

Or something like that.

38

“Sodomy”… “intrusion”… my GOD, Spiny, you’re making it difficult for people NOT to throw puns at you. :smiley:

So many possibilities with that sentence alone! But, European gentlemen as we both are ([sub][sup]coughcoughEUROTRASHcoughcough[/sup][/sub]), I’m inclined to leave it at a rather bemused, “Why, I did not need to know that much about your bedroom life, kind Sir”. :wink:

39

I think there are different perceptions of freedoms between European countries and the US. For example, “Topping off is a federal offense” stuck on US gas station pumps. I read that and thought “I’m starting to understand the militias’ point of view”. On the flip-side, for example, it’s illegal to drive without seat belts on in the UK - front or back seat. That could be seen as restrictive, or sensible.

Anyone who thinks the most relaxed country in the industrialized world is restrictive… well, they must be high.

40

I don’t feel to well… I think I’ll go see my doc. :smiley: