Due to lack of time I haven’t been able to read all the way through the thread so if I’m repeating earlier posts then my apologies.
The main things where I find that Americans are less free then Europeans are that if you wish to be elected to any major office in the U.S. you must either be personally wealthy or have the backing of those who are.
Numbers of votes are less important then the numbers of Dollar bills at the very start as you can’t even stand for office if you lack those.
This means that your political policies must first be screened by the wealthy before they even have the chance to be put to the electorate as a whole.
The second is company health insurance,losing your job means losing your health care.
Gives the employers a pretty big whip to crack over their employees.
Sorry Bob we have a bit of a crisis,sorry its short notice but can you work late tonight?We cant pay you I’m afraid but…
Much as I love America and Americans(And have been a frequent visitor there) I have to say in all honesty that Americans are a lot less free in any real meanuing of the word then the citizens of Europe.
You can kiss your chains and praise them but they’re still chains no matter how dark the glasses that you’re wearing.
Going to have to addthis story(from this thread). As one of many examples of the US being “less free” than the UK. That simply wouldn’t happen in the UK (actually theoretically flying a Union Jack upside down is a secret distress call, but I don’t thing many coppers would catch that )
I don’t think anyone is linking to specific news articles about China or France, what you’re doing is attempting to excuse your complete lack of fact checking by changing the goal posts.
The reason it is important to have the statute number is the United States is a country of laws, and if someone can be arrested solely for disseminating opinion then there is going to be a law on the books to reflect that. The fact that you have not been able to produce one gives me a strong inclination to believe you are just simply inclined to bash the United States.
For the record if France or China arrested someone for broadcasting terrorist recruitment media in a for-profit deal with entities that French/Chinese nationals are legally prohibited from having business dealings with I probably would not be condemning them at all. I like that you jump to conclusions about how I would react to things, though.
If you want to have a serious debate lets keep it on the specific topic you brought up, and not bring up irrelevant asides about other countries. If this man was truly arrested for what you say he was, give me statutory proof, otherwise you’re just going off of your personal interpretation of the news article.
I’ve done a little bit of research myself since sailor hadn’t bothered when he made his initial claims.
According to this release from the U.S. Treasury Department (link) U.S. nationals and business entities are prohibited from having financial transactions with al Manar, al Nour, and the Lebenese Media Group.
It appears this is under the authority of an executive order that can prohibit financial dealings with entities designated as “terrorist.” I see nothing in the text of this that makes me believe any of these media outlets are “banned” or that you would go to jail just for broadcasting their content. While I need more information to say for sure, I suspect that if I maintained a website entirely on my own initiative that broadcast this stuff, and I had no financial ties to any of these entities I’d be perfectly in the clear.
The man who was arrested (and plead guilty) was accused of having significant financial interactions with al Manar, and was accused of being paid more than $20,000 on a monthly basis by al Manar to broadcast their material.
Isn’t it the common cry that “money isn’t speech” by people on these forums? I don’t think the man who was arrested got in trouble for exercising his first amendment rights but for deciding to profit off of a business relationship with an entity that U.S. residents are legally prohibited from carrying on a business relationship with.
As I stated in a previous post. He plead guilty to “providing support” to a terrorist organization in exchange for that money. The only “support” he provided was broadcasting their opinions. I find it hard to believe it would perfectly OK legally speaking to “provide support” to terrorists for free.
Well, no. He apparently gave the group thousands of dollars which is pretty much the core idea of material support. Moreover, the statute in question has an explicit exemption for activities that would otherwise constitute material support but which are protected by the First Amendment ("Nothing in this section shall be construed or applied so as to abridge the exercise of rights guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,” 18 U.S.C. 2339B(i)). So if he were prosecuted for the broadcast alone, he or his lawyer would have to have been an idiot in order to enter a guilty plea.
He received money, he didn’t give them any. The FBI website is quite explicit:
The “support” he provided was in the form of transmitting the opinions of a terrorist organization. Yes, he may well have been committing a crime just by receiving their cash, but what he plead guilty to was providing “support” in exchange for that cash. And the support wasn’t guns, or bombs, it was the broadcasting of images and sound.
My mistake. My point goes to the larger issue though. The statute expressly exempts First Amendment activity from the definition of support. So either there’s something going on here beyond what we know, or he had a terrible lawyer.
This is SUCH a ired argument, I don’t understand why people keep using it. The only people it convinces are people who already believe that taxation is a form of theft rather than a civic obligation.
This is probably true but once again, you are are kinda stretching the definition of freedom. France also has a pretty robust universal health care system and the pensions in Europe are generally fully funded so they don’t go bankrupt as often as ours. With all that said, I agree that 2 years of unemployment payments is too much.
Aren’t you also free to move to a country with less government and lower taxes? What in the world keeps these people here. Monaco has a ZERO tax rate, why don’t they all move there?
I have an Iphone, I hate the fact that I have to use AT&T instead of Verizon but I have the freedom to go back to AT&T and get a phone I don’t particularly want.
[quote]
Licensing hurdles to start a business are also staggering in Europe. It is practically impossible to start a bank in Spain, for example.[/quoute]
One kinda far left “freedom” you encounter is the pro-choice argument that we should require trained doctors to perform legal abotrions because the refusal of so many doctors restricts my “FREEDOM TO” have an abortion.
You can phrase anything as a freedom to or freedom from is you twist the words enough.
Isn’t it odd how some people consider not starving to death success? I guess conservatives have a very low success threshold, which makes sense when you consider what they call a successful governor or president.
Me, I figure the average unemployed welfare recipient doesn’t consider himself or herself much of a success.
)