Who's really the prick?

While it's the right of any U.S. citizen to call any president a prick - or any other name of his choosing, where does the Constitution give a Brit or any other foreigner the right of free speech under our laws?

While it's the right of any U.S. citizen to call any president a prick - or any other name of his choosing, where does the Constitution give a Brit or any other foreigner the right of free speech under our laws? Originally Posted by John Bull

The First Amendment applies both inside and outside the US.

Unlike some of the other amendments that specifically mention and apply only to the "people" of the United States, the First Amendment forbids restriction on speech in general. It's not limited to the people or the territory of the United States.

Cheers,
Mazo.

The First Amendment applies both inside and outside the US.

Unlike some of the other amendments that specifically mention and apply only to the "people" of the United States, the First Amendment forbids restriction on speech in general. It's not limited to the people or the territory of the United States.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

I'm sure the Chinese will be glad to hear that their people are protected by our 1st Amendment.

I'm sure the Chinese will be glad to hear that their people are protected by our 1st Amendment. Originally Posted by John Bull

JB, your oneliners are becoming as legendary as PJ's

Hypothetically, if this kid had ONLY called the POTUS a prick (no threats or anything else)...would the ammendment even be relevent to his situation given he was on UK soil when he said it? Wouldn't he have to be on US soil for it to apply with regards Freedom of Speech at least?

I think it depends on the nature of the threat. Did he threaten to write a letter to The Guardian exposing the perfidy and uselessness of his policies in Afghanistan? Did he threaten to denounce him at Speaker's Corner on Sunday? Did he threaten to turn him over to the Hague War Crimes Tribunal? Or was it a credible threat of actual imminent violence? Unless it was the latter, I think it's irrelevant that there was a threat. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Sounds like you have a potential client. Take this boy on pro-bono and get the ban lifted.

Actually, the kid is lucky that we don't have any Predator drones flying over England.

Remember the good old days when Bush just trampled individual rights "in theory"?

I'm sure the Chinese will be glad to hear that their people are protected by our 1st Amendment. Originally Posted by John Bull

Because God help us if we EVER have to listen to a point of view that's not our own . . . .

Cheers,
Mazo.

Remember the good old days when Bush just trampled individual rights "in theory"? Originally Posted by pjorourke

"Rights?! Rights?! We don' need no steenkin' rights."

Lest some here come to the conclusion that the US free speech tradition should not be applied outside the friendly confines of the US borders, consider the consequences of the alternative.

Under French defamation law you can be run up on both civil and criminal charges for making "any allegation or imputation of an act affecting the honour or reputation of the person or body against whom it is made". This includes statements posted on the internet which are visible to users in France.

So all you have to do to get charged with a crime under French law is to make a statement anywhere in the world that offends the "honour" of a Frenchman that in any way makes it back to France over the net. You never have to go to France. You never have to intend that the statement will be published in France. Just say something to somebody that ends up on the internet where it can be seen in France et viola, criminal prosecution.

It just happened to the CEO of Google three weeks ago. He and the company were prosecuted in France because the "Google Suggest" function kept bringing up words like "rapist" when you typed in the names of known French sex offenders. Since in France it "offends the honour" of a person to tell people he's a convicted felon after he's done his time and has been "rehabilitated", Google and its CEO got run up for just suggesting that these convicted sex offenders were . . . well . . . convicted sex offenders.

Is that really the kind of thing that we want in this country? I don't think so. Free and open access to ideas - regardless of where they come from - is critical to the efficient functioning of a democratic government. How are you gonna fix what's wrong with the country if nobody's allowed to point out the flaws?

If it's OK for an American to bitch his ass off about something then it's OK for a foreigner to do the same thing IMHO. The kid in Camille's example crossed the line and did something that would have been a crime even if an American had done it. But if some unknown arse in some unknown place decides to "offend my honour" on the internet then let him. My ego isn't so big that I won't live through it. I'm perfectly happy to extend the First Amendment to anybody who needs it.

Cheers,
Mazo.

If it's OK for an American to bitch his ass off about something then it's OK for a foreigner to do the same thing IMHO. The kid in Camille's example crossed the line and did something that would have been a crime even if an American had done it. But if some unknown arse in some unknown place decides to "offend my honour" on the internet then let him. My ego isn't so big that I won't live through it. I'm perfectly happy to extend the First Amendment to anybody who needs it. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

While we disagree on a great deal, we DO agree on this.

Frankly, I believe the various anti-free-speech laws throughout Europe, particularly those that hold people outside of Europe responsible under their laws, are a travesty.

We need nothing of the sort here.

Oh Yes! That foreign application is in Amendment IAA. Missed it before!

While we disagree on a great deal, we DO agree on this.

Frankly, I believe the various anti-free-speech laws throughout Europe, particularly those that hold people outside of Europe responsible under their laws, are a travesty.

We need nothing of the sort here. Originally Posted by Laurentius

The most insidious anti-free speech "laws" are those that ensure death, torture or confinement in some hell hole at a dictator's whim. Just sayin'...

"Rights?! Rights?! We don' need no steenkin' rights." Originally Posted by SR Only

Hey!! We have a retired President on the board!!!! Come to one of the socials, W. There are a number of issues I'd like to talk to you about. ( Unless of course your predecessor is there. In that case, I'm chasin' pussy with Bill and takin' notes. Lot's of notes.)

Sorry my quote was a para-phrase from "The Treasure of Sierra Madrè." PJ has warned me about trying to be humorous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinking_badges

PJ has warned me about trying to be humorous. Originally Posted by SR Only

And you didn't listen, did you.