|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jun 15, 2011 1:49:20 GMT -5
Not in this context does bringing up the past have anything to do with anything. End of discussion. You bringing up things like how it was illegal to be communist has nothing to do with privacy in this day and age. Just like internment camps Japanese or otherwise have nothing to do with privacy which is the crux of this thread, no? But you're the one who brought up our present-day rights using yesteryear examples.
You're just butthurt because it was brought up that people outside of the US don't have the same working knowledge of US law that intelligent US citizens do.
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Jun 15, 2011 2:09:52 GMT -5
Except I was talking about another topic. Something that came up during the thread. I actually wasn't discussing privacy in this day and age. I was discussing something else. You know the thing that I said I was discussing. The bit about comparative rights you know between the example given of Australia and the US. Which lead to a premise that because certain rights were enshrine in a paper document they were somehow better than other rights.
I think if you go back to my original post in the topic you will see that as far as I'm concernced Smurfette has answered the question about the legal rights qua the billboard. (I've decided to use the word qua because its cool). Afterwhich it is pretty clear that I am discussing other things. But threads never derail here. On the exact original topic all the time.
And yes I'm extremely butthurt about it so butthurt that I'm going to get a new jar of cream.
OK Let's all just admit that I'm good looking and we'll move on.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jun 15, 2011 4:13:06 GMT -5
Christ, Davedan, just shut up and admit you're wrong, already.
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Jun 15, 2011 8:16:37 GMT -5
Um, Davedan, you said a couple pages ago that there are places in the U.S. that atheists can't hold public office. That may be true in practice, but the way you got there makes the statement wrong. Yes, there are places in this shining beacon of freedom and liberty we call the United States of America where an atheist cannot hold public office. I will admit that. Just like I will ask you to admit that holding public office is not a right any more than being a teacher, plumber, truck driver, or doctor is a right. To be a teacher et all, you have to pass the interview. Same with holding public office, only we call the interview process for elected officials campaigning and the selection process elections. And nobody can stop am atheist from running. But if the constituency decides not to vote for an atheist, then, well, that falls well within the grounds of fair play in the democratic part of the democratic republic in which we live. Just like if the truck driver does not impress zir prospective employer, said employer is free to find an applicant who is better suited.
As far as being illegal to be a communist under McCarthy. That wasn't entirely true, unless you wish to provide something. He made it hard as hell. He made communism a very undesirable political party. He blackballed people (which was illegal). Hoover had files on them. But FBI files aren't nearly as scary as they are supposed to be. Hell, I have a FBI file. But I don't think he jailed anyone for being a dirty pinko. He may have trumped up other charges (he would have had to) but not for that.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jun 15, 2011 10:14:49 GMT -5
Rookie, I think davedan believes there are laws that mean a damn saying atheists can't hold public office rather than than it being unable to happen due to cultural reasons. But, with those laws, federal law overrides them and renders the laws void. An atheist can legally run for any public office anywhere in the US.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jun 15, 2011 11:07:23 GMT -5
Rookie, I think davedan believes there are laws that mean a damn saying atheists can't hold public office rather than than it being unable to happen due to cultural reasons. But, with those laws, federal law overrides them and renders the laws void. An atheist can legally run for any public office anywhere in the US. See Torcaso v. Watkins for details.
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Jun 15, 2011 20:06:37 GMT -5
Rookie, I think davedan believes there are laws that mean a damn saying atheists can't hold public office rather than than it being unable to happen due to cultural reasons. But, with those laws, federal law overrides them and renders the laws void. An atheist can legally run for any public office anywhere in the US. Yeah, that was pretty much my point. But since he was so hung up on rights, I wanted to drive home two things. A) an atheist has the right to run for any damn office s/he damn well chooses. And B) the people have the right not to vote for that candidate based soley on religious preferences.
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Jun 15, 2011 20:39:31 GMT -5
No I wasn't talking about the prospects of them getting elected. I realise that there are many practical impediments to getting elected which may essentially render it impossible for a person to be elected but which do not 'legally' prevent you from doing so. For instance I imagine it would be a practical impossiblity for an otherwise unemployed poor person with a meth addiction to be elected to office but that there is not any law that would prevent them from doing so.
My point was that legal documents are only worth what force they are given. Various states have laws that make it illegal for atheists to hold office in the US. I believe one state actually is trying to enforce it. Vene points out that these state rights are trumped by a supervening federal law, being the constitution and bill of rights. However it does serve to illustrate my point that simply looking at one document does not disclose the rights a citizen may have in a community. For instance just to look at the constitution is to ignore what is recorded in other statutes and case law. Which is why it is incorrect to say that a citizen of one country has more rights than citizens of another country merely by reference to their consitution.
As for my dig about patriotism I don't actually believe that anyone here is super patriotic or nationalistic. Its just a recurring experience I have had with US citizens that whenever someone (whose not a US Citizen) suggests that somethings are done just as well or better in (said foreign country) US Citizens, who might otherwise be internally critical of the Country, band together and sometimes irrationally insist that no the US is better regardless.
Also the you think you know but you don't arguments are highly reminiscent of the creationist, were you there arguments. But to be honest since the decision in the Engineers' Case there has been a divergence in the interpretation of Australian and US constitutional law such that it is not as important for an Australian lawyer to know US law as it is to know Canadian Law.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 15, 2011 20:43:29 GMT -5
The problem was that someone was acting as if they were an expert on US law while displaying blatant ignorance of it. It'd be like an American claiming they were an expert on British law and insisting that the British get arrested for saying anything negative about their country.
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Jun 15, 2011 20:57:45 GMT -5
The problem was that someone was acting as if they were an expert on US law while displaying blatant ignorance of it. It'd be like an American claiming they were an expert on British law and insisting that the British get arrested for saying anything negative about their country. I never suggested that anyone in the US would get arrested for deprecating the US or anything even remotely similar to that analogy. Where the fuck did you get that from? My suggestion was that I'm just as qualified to express an opinion amongst other non-experts. The point that I came into the argument was about a comparison of rights between the US and Australia. Funnily enough such a comparision cannot be made without knowing about the laws in each Country. Really what I was saying is that referring to the Constitution as the only source of rights to suggest one country (in the present example the US as compared to Australia) has more rights than another without referring to other things, such as case law, is puerile. I'm sorry if I was obtuse on that point. Just to be perfectly clear I wasn't weighing in on whether what this particular creep did was against the law or to champion his rights to free speach. Not that any single one of my posts has actually done that.
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jun 15, 2011 22:26:56 GMT -5
The problem was that someone was acting as if they were an expert on US law while displaying blatant ignorance of it. It'd be like an American claiming they were an expert on British law and insisting that the British get arrested for saying anything negative about their country. I never suggested that anyone in the US would get arrested for deprecating the US or anything even remotely similar to that analogy. Where the fuck did you get that from? Reading comprehension. His point was that lighthorseman was arguing the point from the perspective of Australian law, and ignoring the relevant laws in the US when they were pointed out to him. Thus, he was discussing a topic that he had no knowledge in (and, in fact, ignoring all efforts to enlighten him) while claiming that he knew what he was talking about. Zachski's analogy was that lighthorseman's attempt at interpreting US law would be like an American arguing a case in UK law, while proving themselves to be totally ignorant of UK law. His example was that an American arguing that the British would be arrested for speaking against the government was as ridiculous as lighthorseman's claim that there are no privacy laws in the US. I am disappointed that I had to spell that out.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Jun 16, 2011 1:29:29 GMT -5
I don't think it's very fruitful to attempt to compare Australia and the United States with regards to adherence to civil libertarian principles. Looking at each country's record on freedom of speech and secularism, capital punishment, treatment of indigenous and minority populations, privacy, economic policy, etc., I'd speculate that in some cases the United States is the more liberal country and in others Australia is; it seems too subjective to say which is more liberal as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 16, 2011 1:46:48 GMT -5
I never suggested that anyone in the US would get arrested for deprecating the US or anything even remotely similar to that analogy. Where the fuck did you get that from? Reading comprehension. His point was that lighthorseman was arguing the point from the perspective of Australian law, and ignoring the relevant laws in the US when they were pointed out to him. Thus, he was discussing a topic that he had no knowledge in (and, in fact, ignoring all efforts to enlighten him) while claiming that he knew what he was talking about. Zachski's analogy was that lighthorseman's attempt at interpreting US law would be like an American arguing a case in UK law, while proving themselves to be totally ignorant of UK law. His example was that an American arguing that the British would be arrested for speaking against the government was as ridiculous as lighthorseman's claim that there are no privacy laws in the US. I am disappointed that I had to spell that out. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jun 16, 2011 16:45:59 GMT -5
Reading comprehension. His point was that lighthorseman was arguing the point from the perspective of Australian law, and ignoring the relevant laws in the US when they were pointed out to him. Thus, he was discussing a topic that he had no knowledge in (and, in fact, ignoring all efforts to enlighten him) while claiming that he knew what he was talking about. Zachski's analogy was that lighthorseman's attempt at interpreting US law would be like an American arguing a case in UK law, while proving themselves to be totally ignorant of UK law. His example was that an American arguing that the British would be arrested for speaking against the government was as ridiculous as lighthorseman's claim that there are no privacy laws in the US. I am disappointed that I had to spell that out. Thank you. You're welcome.
|
|