USA Unfreedom of Speach

[Debaser]

What KidCharlemagne said. What a waste of pixels.

[Captain_Amazing]

*Originally posted by Aldebaran *
**The government is formed by a coalition of political parties who have together a majority in Chamber and Senate.
For its formation is the leading instance of the execution power thus dependent of the law making power.
On the other hand is the government, by the mere fact that it can rely on the support of the parliamentary majority, the most important motor of the law making activity.
**

Usually, in America, when we refer to “the government”, we use the term to refer to the legislative, executive, and judicial powers, so that the President, a senator, a judge, and a bureaucrat all would be considered part of “the government”, regardless of their political beliefs. So, even a legislator in the minority party is considered part of the government here.

[Aldebaran]

In Belgium those powers are separated, like I explained.

“Government” refers to the two chambers (Chamber and Senate ) for the federal government ; the same for the regional goverments.

Salaam. A

[Aldebaran]

In Belgium those powers are separated, like I explained.

“Government” refers to the two chambers (Chamber and Senate ) for the federal government ; the same for the regional goverments.

That is not the “executive branche”, it is the law making branche.
The executive power is referred to as “administration”.

Salaam. A

[Munch]

A, do you have a term that would refer to all three branches in total?

[Aldebaran]

Not that I can think of.

The principle of the separations of powers goes back to the “trias politica” of John Locke and Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu.

Salaam. A

[E-Sabbath]

How about “The Public Sector” as opposed to the “Private Sector”?

Now, understanding as you do, Deb, that when Americans say “government”, they mean the entire non-private sector of the nation, does this change anything you’ve been dealing with?

[Munch]

As do ours, but they’re all agents of the state. I think this is another example of a mistranslation. Regardless of whether or not your judges are independent, I very much doubt they are not federally employed (where does their paycheck come from, a private contractor?).

I’m currently looking through the Belgium government’s website, and I found the following:

Le Service public fédéral Justice exerce un rôle actif à l’égard des pouvoirs législatif, exécutif et judiciaire. Ses missions de conseil juridique, d’appui de l’appareil judiciaire, et d’exécution des peines ont pour but de contribuer à une relation plus harmonieuse entre le citoyen et la Justice.

Altavista’s Babelfish service translates this roughly to:

The federal Public utility Justice exerts an active with l?égard legislative powers, executive and legal role. Its missions of legal council, d?appui of l?appareil legal, and the purpose of d?exécution of the sorrows are to contribute to a more harmonious relation between the citizen and Justice.

Sorry, but I’m afraid that my understanding of that text lends me to the belief that the judiciary is, indeed, a federally acting entity, and would fall under my definition of the word “government”. If there’s something I’m not understanding, please fill me in.

[Aldebaran]

No no, this goes only about some change in the way the Ministry of Justice shall interact with the public.

Since 15 juli 2002 is the Ministry of Justice transformed to the Federal Public Service Justice. That is not only a change in the name, it means also some changes in
Salaam. A

[Aldebaran]

No no, this goes only about some change in the way the Ministry of Justice shall interact with the public.

Since 15 juli 2002 is the Ministry of Justice transformed in the Federal Public Service Justice. (FOD)

The goal of the FOD Justice is to reach excellence in the case of its functioning for lesgislative, juridical and executive support, with the goal to add to a more efficent relation between Justice and the citizen.

Salaam. A

[Munch]

That’s not the point. The point is that the judicial system is neither a private organization or a publicly contracted entity. Ergo, it’s a public service, i.e. governmental.

[Aldebaran]

Oh forgot… translation of your quote:

FOD Justitie plays an active role in the lawmaking, executive and juridical power. Via his assignment as juridical advisor in function of supporting factor of the juridical apparatus en by the implementation of punishments, he has the goal to cooperate at a more harmonious relation between citizen and Justice.

[Beagle]

From the first article you cited,

“If you’re going to participate in a public way in any demonstration involving the war, you must clear it with a department head who will then notify one of us. If you cover a beat or handle stories, photos etc. that may involve that conflict, your publicly-expressed opinions may create at least the appearance of a conflict of interest or bias,” Bronstein wrote.

A media outlet worrying about the outward appearance of or actual bias. I don’t see the problem. If you look at the Ninth Circuit case mentioned it appears facially that the reporter has no legal leg to stand on. There will have to be a factual distinction made by the court based on the reporter’s title. The article goes on,

In fact, Jim Ewert, legal counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, agreed that while the issue of political activities by journalists is complicated, the paper’s legal rights to ban political activity by writers are fairly clear.

He cited a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the suspension of a McClatchy Newspapers reporter who had been arrested during an abortion rally.

“The Ninth Circuit found there is a right that newspapers have to regulate activity that would affect the paper’s credibility,” Ewert said.

Still, in that case, the reporter in question covered the health beat, something directly related to the abortion issue. Norr argues that because his technology column doesn’t delve into matters of politics or war, he should be free to speak out against war as a private citizen.

[Aldebaran]

No it is not “governmental” in the sense that the government can ever interfere with the way Justice operates. That is what I’m saying here.
The only thing the government can do whiat is of course directly influencing Justice, is making laws which. But that is not influencing how Justice works or how Judges do their job.
On the other hand, Justice has a controling function and has a very important role as adviser whenever a new law is drafted.

Of course it is not a private organisation or a public entity. It is part of the State’s apparatus. Like in every Law state.
Salaam. A

[Captain_Amazing]

*Originally posted by Aldebaran *
**In Belgium those powers are separated, like I explained.

“Government” refers to the two chambers (Chamber and Senate ) for the federal government ; the same for the regional goverments.

That is not the “executive branche”, it is the law making branche.
The executive power is referred to as “administration”.
**

The powers are seperated in the US, as well, also based on Locke and Montiesque. However, in the US, we use the word “government” to refer to each branch.

[wonky]

*Originally posted by Aldebaran *
**
Of course it is not a private organisation or a public entity. It is part of the State’s apparatus. Like in every Law state.
**

How about just calling the whole lot of it “the state”?

Then you have two entities: the State and the People.

Julie

[Munch]

*Originally posted by Aldebaran *
**Of course it is not a private organisation or a public entity. It is part of the State’s apparatus. Like in every Law state.
Salaam. A **

Ding ding ding! We [finally] have a winner!

This is the concept we’re trying to get across (after 5 pages). Of COURSE the other branches can’t intefer with the judiciary - that’s the same over here. That’s the whole concept of separation of powers. But the fact remains, the judiciary is an entity of the state.

Now, replace “state” with every instance of “government” in the first 4 pages of this thread, and come back with a big ole pie.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Well, this has been one overdone hijack, I must say.

Regardless of what the word “government” means, does Private Citizen X have the right to shun Private Citizen Y? This shunning can include refusing to have that person in your home, refusing to buy products from them and/or (but not limited to) refusing to watch any television show or film featuring or produced by them. Does Citizen X have to justify this shunning to anyone, or is it entirely at his discretion? Can Citizen X freely tell his other friends that they should also shun Citizen Y? What limits, if any, are on X? Also, does any shunning action of X infringe on the rights of Y? If so, how, and what remedies can you recommend?

In this specific example, does a boycott against their films by private citizens constitute a violation of the civil rights of Sarandon and Robbins? If so, how?

Until these questions are answered, the OP hasn’t even proven his specific case, let alone the inductive conclusion that the United States has “unfreedom” of speech.

His pat reply, if he bothers to make one, will probably be that I am “immature”, but how this proves his case escapes me.

[Munch]

Bryan, you missed a key point. He’ll call you “immature” while at the same denouncing the SDMB because people call him names.

[Bryan_Ekers]

*Originally posted by Munch *
**Bryan, you missed a key point. He’ll call you “immature” while at the same denouncing the SDMB because people call him names. **

Curses! You found the flaw in my dissertation!

You’ll rue the day you crossed me, Munch!