I haven't read through all the contents of the site yet but there's much food for thought there.
Yesterday, when I wrote that anti-nazism post, I realized once again how easy it is for us to patronize the US for their apparent social anarchy. I not only live in a closely-knit welfare state, it's a closely-knit state in general. Only 8 million people, a bit larger than tiny Switzerland, with a long history of an 'enlightened' but still absolutist monarchy until 1918, highly centralized in many respects... it's comparatively easy to create reforms & change here.
Then there's the legal system - trial by jury only in exceptional circumstances, defendant's rights well below American standards ("Call a lawyer - mwahahaha!"), and case law only plays a minor role because there's statutes for just about everything. Advertising their services used to be illegal for lawyers until a couple of years ago and is still considered a bit ungentleman-like by most, while working 'on spec' (for a percentage of damages) leads to immediate disbarment.
Although the Federal Provinces and local authorities have some powers, it's simply inconceivable that a community or an individual would sue a school board (which doesn't exist anyway - you could try to appeal to the Ministry of Education, I guess) for what's taught at school. On many fronts, religious fundamentalists wouldn't stand a chance... ok, also because the Catholic Church holds some kind of spiritual monopoly and has close ties with the state (but not much real influnce, hallelujah ;-).
As with the nazi issue, many aspects of the welfare state (or 'liberalism') are actively enforced by the government, not supported by private initiative, or have simple historical reasons.
Well... I guess it's an inexhaustible topic, really.
I suppose every corner of the world has its bad and good. Overall, I think our system works as well as can be expected given human nature and the size of the country. The fact that the "little guy" can actually win once in a while still amazes me. The laws regarding hate groups (Neo-nazis & their ilk) are difficult to grapple with for me. My first instinct is to support anything that will make them disappear. I live in a country where a man was dragged to death behind a truck, and another was tied to a fence and tortured to death because of sick notions that were originally disseminated through supposed "free speech." I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that sort of inhumane targeting of individuals being the price paid for everyone's right to express their views. Words are powerful and action always starts out as an idea...but I'm not certain that state censorship of speech is a lesser evil. I'm more inclined to think that we should keep the arena open and fight bad ideas with good ideas...call me an optimist, or maybe I'm just incredibly naive. There are groups in our country that deal with this sort of thing, though. Here (http://www.splcenter.org) is one of the best.
In another post (http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?itemid=1371863) in my friend Jane's (http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=janedeau) journal I argued my point from a local angle, and also mentioned that right-wing extremists tend to fall prey to a dangerous nostalgia of the nazi years... I'm really beginning to thing that this specific limitation of free speech has historical reasons which are not applicable to the US - with the tricky question of local wannabe nazis maintaining their sicko sites in a free haven...
I also mentioned our constitution. I did some research, and luckily the relevant documents are also available in English here (http://www.austria.gv.at/regierung/VD/inhalt_en.htm). Although not part of our constitution proper, the State Treaty for the Re-Establishment of an Independent and Democratic Austria (link requires "Word"), concluded between the Allied Powers and Austria from 1955, nevertheless holds the rank of a constitutional law; being an international treaty, it therefore can't just be revoked by the Austrian Parliament. This document says in Article 9, cl. 1 ("Dissolution of Nazi Organizations"):
Austria shall also continue the efforts to eliminate from Austrian political, economic and cultural life all traces of Nazism, to ensure that the above-mentioned organizations are not revived in any form, and to prevent all Nazi and militarist activity and propaganda in Austria.
The US, on the other hand, have always been a place of refuge for political and religious dissenters, with an unbroken history of democracy for over 200 years. I do understand these differences... tricky subject in your country, fairly undisputed in mine.
No worries...I never get tired of the law, believe it or not. I think you're absolutely correct in your evaluation of the different approaches from a historical perspective. Here in the U.S. we have the luxury of a detachment of sorts from the reality of what happened during WWII since it did not occur on our soil. I think this gives us a "comfort zone" that Europeans do not have with the resurgence of these hateful ideas on the Internet. We're an odd bunch over here. I have always theorized that perhaps our tolerance of offensive speech is tied in to the fact that the citizenry has the ability to arm itself should we be targeted for the action urged in the speech itself. The idea of "you can say whatever you want--but if you act upon it and hurt me with it, I'll blow your head off" sort of approach. Hmmmm...then again, that could just be a Texan thing. Here are a couple of more viewpoints on the issue, from the ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/issues/freespeech/arfs.html) and the ADL (http://www.adl.org/frames/front_20faq.html).
Thanks for the links - too bad the one about the Flag "Desecration" Amendment one because it seems to be broken (I've always wondered about that one myself...).
I think the basis for our constitution is a very pragmatist one while America's is strongly influenced by philosophical ideas (Hume, Locke, etc.). In an ever wider sense there's the "role model" of the Catholic Church, who has a centuries-old tradition of preaching one thing and practicing something completely different if their power is endangered... our Emperors adopted pretty much the same doublethink, and in many respects our modern state isn't much better (there's many laws that are just not enforced, or leave large loopholes... and the result, in fact, is a fairly liberal state).
Pornography discussions, for example (the issue has been dead for decades, but anyway) always centered on the concept of "decency", never on free speech, or freedom of artistic expression. The last time a song got actually "banned" from the radio was Frank Zappa's "Bobby Brown" - after two months (took them some time to get the lyrics *lol), but that was the radio stations autonomous decision (this was in the times of the state broadcasting monopoly - strange country here *g)...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
bizetsy.livejournal.com - damn
From:
damn
your posts are wonderful. and you have succint encouraging words for me.
thank you.
From:
Re: damn
From:
Wow!
I haven't read through all the contents of the site yet but there's much food for thought there.
Yesterday, when I wrote that anti-nazism post, I realized once again how easy it is for us to patronize the US for their apparent social anarchy. I not only live in a closely-knit welfare state, it's a closely-knit state in general. Only 8 million people, a bit larger than tiny Switzerland, with a long history of an 'enlightened' but still absolutist monarchy until 1918, highly centralized in many respects... it's comparatively easy to create reforms & change here.
Then there's the legal system - trial by jury only in exceptional circumstances, defendant's rights well below American standards ("Call a lawyer - mwahahaha!"), and case law only plays a minor role because there's statutes for just about everything. Advertising their services used to be illegal for lawyers until a couple of years ago and is still considered a bit ungentleman-like by most, while working 'on spec' (for a percentage of damages) leads to immediate disbarment.
Although the Federal Provinces and local authorities have some powers, it's simply inconceivable that a community or an individual would sue a school board (which doesn't exist anyway - you could try to appeal to the Ministry of Education, I guess) for what's taught at school. On many fronts, religious fundamentalists wouldn't stand a chance... ok, also because the Catholic Church holds some kind of spiritual monopoly and has close ties with the state (but not much real influnce, hallelujah ;-).
As with the nazi issue, many aspects of the welfare state (or 'liberalism') are actively enforced by the government, not supported by private initiative, or have simple historical reasons.
Well... I guess it's an inexhaustible topic, really.
From:
Re: Wow!
From:
Don't wanna harrass you with legal stuff on the weekend, but...
I also mentioned our constitution. I did some research, and luckily the relevant documents are also available in English here (http://www.austria.gv.at/regierung/VD/inhalt_en.htm). Although not part of our constitution proper, the State Treaty for the Re-Establishment of an Independent and Democratic Austria (link requires "Word"), concluded between the Allied Powers and Austria from 1955, nevertheless holds the rank of a constitutional law; being an international treaty, it therefore can't just be revoked by the Austrian Parliament. This document says in Article 9, cl. 1 ("Dissolution of Nazi Organizations"):
Austria shall also continue the efforts to eliminate from Austrian political, economic and cultural life all traces of Nazism, to ensure that the above-mentioned organizations are not revived in any form, and to prevent all Nazi and militarist activity and propaganda in Austria.
The US, on the other hand, have always been a place of refuge for political and religious dissenters, with an unbroken history of democracy for over 200 years. I do understand these differences... tricky subject in your country, fairly undisputed in mine.
From:
Re: Don't wanna harrass you with legal stuff on the weekend, but...
From:
Otherwise, things are pretty relaxed here...
I think the basis for our constitution is a very pragmatist one while America's is strongly influenced by philosophical ideas (Hume, Locke, etc.). In an ever wider sense there's the "role model" of the Catholic Church, who has a centuries-old tradition of preaching one thing and practicing something completely different if their power is endangered... our Emperors adopted pretty much the same doublethink, and in many respects our modern state isn't much better (there's many laws that are just not enforced, or leave large loopholes... and the result, in fact, is a fairly liberal state).
Pornography discussions, for example (the issue has been dead for decades, but anyway) always centered on the concept of "decency", never on free speech, or freedom of artistic expression. The last time a song got actually "banned" from the radio was Frank Zappa's "Bobby Brown" - after two months (took them some time to get the lyrics *lol), but that was the radio stations autonomous decision (this was in the times of the state broadcasting monopoly - strange country here *g)...
From: (Anonymous)
no subject