I’m not claiming exactly that, but wondering about it. I don’t know the details, but there were reports of action taken against people who criticize the government in the UK, the Germans have their Holocaust rules, Canadians have Hate Speech rules, etc… These cases seem to apply to the writer, not the reader, but its all in the category of free speech. I do want to know if there is any other country with the freedom we have.
Most of the exceptions noted for the US are about stolen property, embargoed items, and further acts the speech leads to, like inciting a riot. Child porn seems to be the only one where free speech is restricted. In that case, the producer is assumed to have committed a crime to produce the porn, but the reader is culpable as well.
So I would like to hear if any country at least asserts the concept of free speech as in our constitution, and what actual restrictions exist.
Irishman: I say I make the best hamburgers. Does that mean I deny you’re making hamburgers? No, I can smell them from my kitchen, and I can see all of their flaws from my back porch. Hence my claim that I make the best.
Also, I’m would like Shakester to clarify this assertion:
I’ve already demonstrated that it’s factually untrue as I’ve interpreted it, and I would like to know if I interpreted it correctly.
No, you don’t know the details, do you? We aren’t Iran, you know. UK governments (and I’ve lived under… lemme see, 4 of them as an adult) don’t like people who criticize them, but then, name me a government that does. I’d like to see a cite of this “action taken”. The Valery Plame scandal could be pretty well defined as “action taken against people who criticized the govt”, couldn’t it?
To be fair, they don’t have much choice. Imagine the ruckus if they didn’t have such rules. In all other respects they’re like most other western democracies, i.e. their de facto freedom of speech is good, but not perfect, i.e. just like the US’s, or the UK’s.
The only time I remember being directly affected by the UK’s absence of an explicit codified protection for free speech was the whole Spycatcher fiasco. I just bought a copy of it when I was in Germany that summer.
Going back to the OP for a moment (remember that discussion about reading in the U.S.? :)), each state, county, municipality, library district, school district, and individual school has the ability to ban certain reading materials. Even though the 1st amendment provides that the Federal government shall not limit freedom of the press, you can easily find yourself in a town where it’s against the law to sell certain books or certain types of books, and the libraries can’t carry those books (ETA: There are at least two schools that won’t allow my children’s books in their library because of the word “pooped” in the title).
Since my interest in this subject comes from being an author and bookseller, I haven’t looked into whether a municipality or state can make it illegal to own and/or read a copy of How to use Satanic Child-Porn Magyk for more effective Terrorism and Tax Evasion – or whether they can only restrict the sales of the book.
However, “Habana” cigars are widely available around the U.S. The last one I saw was made in the Dominican Republic. The name was meant to imply that the tobacco was grown from Cuban seed.
I would love to know what percentage of the “Authentic Cuban Cigars” purchased by American tourists in Mexico and Canada are really from Cuba.
Gitlow v New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1928) incorporated the First Amendment as against the states, relying on the 14th Amendment to do so.
The state/county/whatever may be able to stop a library having the books. I don’t believe they can prevent the book being sold, absent obscenity, and, even then, the state/municipality/whatever may not ban them. As stated above, the Supreme Court has invalidated laws penalizing the possession of obscene material.
I can’t speak for Mexico; but as far as Canada goes, there are surprisingly few tobacconists authorized by Habanos S.A. to sell genuine Cuban cigars.
There are enough authorized retailers to meet market demand, certainly; but at the height of the cigar boom, it was a pretty sure thing that most unauthorized places bearing signs that said “Cuban Cigars Available Here” were either (a) reselling cigars of dubious provenance that tourists thought were genuine when they bought them on Caribbean vacations; (b) reselling genuine, but low-end, Cubans (e.g. machine-made Troyas, Quinteros, and Los Statos Deluxe) bought at authorized tobacconists; or © knowingly selling obvious fakes, but hoping visiting Americans wouldn’t notice.
Interesting little aside: Once, while in an unauthorized tobacconist’s in a popular Canadian tourist destination for Americans, I pointed at the “Cubans” and remarked to my companion, “you know, these aren’t real.” The proprietor overheard, asked me if I was American, and when I replied in the negative, I was asked to leave.
As regards points (a) and ©, I often had American business associates up on business during the boom. Many would want to get and try a Cuban cigar during their visit to Canada. After hearing my associates’ stories of disappointment caused by buying fake Cohiba Esplendidos at such establishments as gas stations and newsstands, I began to put on a little “how not to get taken when shopping for a Cuban cigar” seminar after work for those who were interested.
Sorry for the hijack, folks. Back to the topic…
While not directly censorship by the government, the libel laws in the UK could be said to suppress free speech by making certain attacks on well known people dangerous to your wallet. In the US, Sullivan made it is much harder for a person in the news to win a libel judgment.
Precisely. The UK’s effective free speech is sharply limited by their libel laws, as Simon Singh found out when he dared criticize the quacks in the chiropractic movement. These laws promote libel tourism, a form of forum-shopping where the offended party sues in the UK due to the higher chance of winning and being awarded damages. It’s so bad we may pass a Federal law specifically to stop it from affecting Americans, and New York has already passed a relevant state law.
[hijack!] Drawings (ie/eg comics) have considerably less protection than pure text in the US. [/hijack!]
Fan fiction is permissible to read, though producing or distributing it legally requires some knowledge of intellectual property law. IANAL. http://www.chillingeffects.org/fanfic/
US Customs used to routinely screen out certain dangerous works of fiction such Tropic of Cancer, Fanny Hill and Lady Chatterley’s Lover. That ban was overturned in 1959.