The Netherlands emulates, uh, Canada?

[PBzeer]

So eps, as an example of your line of reasoning, there is nothing UNconstitutional about a flag burning amendment? Flag burning being a very noticeable and visible form of hate.

[bubb2]

Please make up your mind!!

your post #13 is talking about inalienable, now you say your not talking about those. I am sorry I just can't keep up, my head is spinning. Please go slow with me as your are changing your point of view so fast, and I am old.

We have addressed that issue in the 9th Amendment:



Some jurists have asserted that the Ninth Amendment is relevant to interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Arthur Goldberg (joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan) expressed this view in a concurring opinion in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965):

The Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights.... I do not mean to imply that the .... Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government....While the Ninth Amendment - and indeed the entire Bill of Rights - originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement.

My Inalienable rights are guaranteed by the Constitution.

[erps]

Originally Posted by ebs001

I am not making comment on Wilder but what constitutes inalienable rights. That has been the purpose of my comments right from the beginning. Go back and read all my posts on this thread. I have not until this post even mentioned Wilder's name. I have only attempted to point out that hate propagation is not an inalienable right in my estimation.
bubb, I can except your list but I don't agree with it. The inalienable rights listed in the Declation of Independence are not listed in the Constitution. The rights in the Constitution were inacted and ratified by the signatory states into the law of the land. Regardless, I make the point again that hate propagation is not an inalienable right and you seem to agree that it is not because it didn't make your list.
erps in the context of my comments it doesn't matter what I think about Wilder's prosecution.

Thanks for the clarification. I mistakenly inferred that your very first post was made in the context of Wilder's prosecution, because that's what the article was about, that started the conversation. I don't think I was the only person who thought that.

[erps]

Some of the differences between Canada's freedom of expression and U.S.A.'s freedom of speech:

Freedom of expression in section 2 also has a more wide-ranging scope than the First Amendment to the United States Constitution's freedom of speech.[17] In RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd. (1986), the Canadian Supreme Court considered picketing of the kind the US First Amendment did not permit, as it was disruptive conduct (though there was some speech involved that the First Amendment might otherwise protect). The Supreme Court, however, ruled the picketing, including the disruptive conduct, were fully protected under section 2 of the Charter. The Court then relied on section 1 to find the injunction against the picketing was just.[18] The limitations clause has also allowed governments to enact laws that would be considered unconstitutional in the US. The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld some of Quebec's limits on the use of English on signs and has upheld publication bans that prohibit media from mentioning the names of juvenile criminals.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[US27inKS]

Originally Posted by erps

Thanks for the clarification. I mistakenly inferred that your very first post was made in the context of Wilder's prosecution, because that's what the article was about, that started the conversation. I don't think I was the only person who thought that.

I would bet any amount of money that he was referring to Wilder, and believed that he was guilty of propagating hate without even taking a look at the video. Unfortunately this is the case more often than not. Wilder (or anyone else) produces a film like this, and the same Imams who are preaching hatred and death cry foul. Then people like ebs jump in on the anti hate bandwagon without even knowing who is preaching the hate in the first place.

I was particularly fond of the "Freedom go to Hell" posters. They pretty much say it all.

[ebs001]

bub, inalienable rights is all I've been talking about. Where have I said I'm not?
PB, who is "eps"?

[PBzeer]

sorry, meant ebs. But then, I've never laid claim to perfection

[ebs001]

US27, shall I send you my address so you can send me a cheque because you loose. Give me the word and I'll PM you.

[knothead]

Originally Posted by ebs001

bub, inalienable rights is all I've been talking about. Where have I said I'm not?
PB, who is "eps"?

ebs001, you initially stated;

Originally Posted by ebs001

"We just don't beleve that propogation of hate is an inalienable right. You have one wierd Creator."

I posted the ostrich cartoon in response to that statement. I thought it made my point. Your answer to that was to say "nice self portrait". Dismissive if not clever.
I felt compelled to elaborate and therefore posted the following.

Originally Posted by knothead

The point of the cartoon ebs001, and I'm kinda surprised that you missed it, is that if you believe that the man's effort to educate people about the threat of radical Islam is "inciting hatred and discrimination", you're not being very realistic or else you are uninformed.

Your response was.

Originally Posted by ebs001

Knotty, I'm not the one with my head in the sand. I'm not surprised you missed it.

If you were not saying that you felt the film was hate speech, you certainly made no effort at that time to claim otherwise.

[ebs001]

PB,first your forgiven for the error you are allowed an error per mellennium. I don't think laws against hate propogation are unconstitutional. I think you have to be damn carefull, though, that by limiting freedom of expression, a civil right, you do so only because it infringes on inalienable rights. As we can see from the reactions above to Wilders prosecution hate is very subjective as some of the posters have said they see no hate and the Dutch courts did. It's not always an easy call and courts are not always right. Does that answer your question?