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}
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)...