TYTY, as always, Ma'am. You are *so* lucky where You live there. Would that we had similar views in the U.S. At least we don't have people getting arrested for wrongthink. (Yet.)-:
You won't get people arrested in the US because of Sullivan v New York Times 1964 which stated:
“debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open” and said that vehement criticism and even mistakes were part of the price a democratic society must pay for freedom.
"[I]t is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions," Bridges v. California,
"The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system." Stromberg v. California,1927
Mr. Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 274 U. S. 375-376, gave the principle its classic formulation:
"Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed."
Thus, we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.
It is a small matter of making sure that people are aware the *no debate* stance is actually a political manoeuvre and not protected under the US Constitution. I wish more people knew about this.
I suspect with single sex prisons -- it will take several scandals before the loophole is closed. There has been a lot of work behind the scenes to get to this point.
The Husband is the lawyer -- think Rumpole of the Bailey. Sometimes I believe Hilda Rumpole is my spirit animal. LOL (They were a series of books by John Mortimer and were adapted into a tv series in late 1970s/1980s -- quite popular in the US as well as the UK)
Several years ago when I became really interested in the Culture Wars (self-defence, the Romance Writers of America had a couple of purity spirals) , I started going back to the various major Supreme Court decisions and keeping them in a Word file so I could easily refer to them.
Thus when someone said Sullivan v New York Times, not only did I know what it referred to (an ad in the NYT) which Sullivan claimed was libellous -- the case could have ended the civil rights movement. I also read the judgement and was able to pick out the relevant bits.
I hadn't really looked at it recently until I posted it here. But the Brandeis formulation is actually hugely important in the current climate.
Sorry for the delay. Just saw this. Yeah, people have totally forgotten what Justice Brandeis said. Shameful.
And I did same. I'll copy something important to Word, on the lame theory I can find it later. If I could only remember where I filed it. Search sometimes helps.
TYTY again. I heard-a Rumpole but never watched. The TV I bought a year or two ago is still in the box.
I just keep it all in the same word document -- although sometimes, God knows why I copied various things and it can be difficult to find the precise URL when I think -- ah I know somethign about this. LOL
The John Mortimer books on Rumpole are very good -- they are a series of short stories about a barrister who works at the coal face of crime. Mortimer was an excellent writer -- a good comic eye. He was a former barrister but his main loves were writing and screenwriting.
Years ago, Mortimer was asked if he (and Rumpole) could give support to various barristers who were running in the London Marathon and who were trying to raise money for Bar's Benevolent Fund. He agreed that they could be called Rumpole's Runners as long as Rumpole was not expected to do any running.
ROFL. They could call it "jt's Runners" as long as I wasn't expected to do any running. I'll look into Mortimer. Getting a backlog on my fiction, as well. Right now reading "The Dark Tower IV" by Stephen King. Just an hour or two before bed doesn't get me very far, very fast.
TYTY, as always, Ma'am. You are *so* lucky where You live there. Would that we had similar views in the U.S. At least we don't have people getting arrested for wrongthink. (Yet.)-:
You won't get people arrested in the US because of Sullivan v New York Times 1964 which stated:
“debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open” and said that vehement criticism and even mistakes were part of the price a democratic society must pay for freedom.
"[I]t is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions," Bridges v. California,
"The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system." Stromberg v. California,1927
Mr. Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 274 U. S. 375-376, gave the principle its classic formulation:
"Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed."
Thus, we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.
It is a small matter of making sure that people are aware the *no debate* stance is actually a political manoeuvre and not protected under the US Constitution. I wish more people knew about this.
I suspect with single sex prisons -- it will take several scandals before the loophole is closed. There has been a lot of work behind the scenes to get to this point.
A writer and a lawyer, too! I *never* cease to be amazed. TYTY, Ma'am.
The Husband is the lawyer -- think Rumpole of the Bailey. Sometimes I believe Hilda Rumpole is my spirit animal. LOL (They were a series of books by John Mortimer and were adapted into a tv series in late 1970s/1980s -- quite popular in the US as well as the UK)
Several years ago when I became really interested in the Culture Wars (self-defence, the Romance Writers of America had a couple of purity spirals) , I started going back to the various major Supreme Court decisions and keeping them in a Word file so I could easily refer to them.
Thus when someone said Sullivan v New York Times, not only did I know what it referred to (an ad in the NYT) which Sullivan claimed was libellous -- the case could have ended the civil rights movement. I also read the judgement and was able to pick out the relevant bits.
I hadn't really looked at it recently until I posted it here. But the Brandeis formulation is actually hugely important in the current climate.
Sorry for the delay. Just saw this. Yeah, people have totally forgotten what Justice Brandeis said. Shameful.
And I did same. I'll copy something important to Word, on the lame theory I can find it later. If I could only remember where I filed it. Search sometimes helps.
TYTY again. I heard-a Rumpole but never watched. The TV I bought a year or two ago is still in the box.
I just keep it all in the same word document -- although sometimes, God knows why I copied various things and it can be difficult to find the precise URL when I think -- ah I know somethign about this. LOL
The John Mortimer books on Rumpole are very good -- they are a series of short stories about a barrister who works at the coal face of crime. Mortimer was an excellent writer -- a good comic eye. He was a former barrister but his main loves were writing and screenwriting.
Years ago, Mortimer was asked if he (and Rumpole) could give support to various barristers who were running in the London Marathon and who were trying to raise money for Bar's Benevolent Fund. He agreed that they could be called Rumpole's Runners as long as Rumpole was not expected to do any running.
ROFL. They could call it "jt's Runners" as long as I wasn't expected to do any running. I'll look into Mortimer. Getting a backlog on my fiction, as well. Right now reading "The Dark Tower IV" by Stephen King. Just an hour or two before bed doesn't get me very far, very fast.