Chesterton et al  v Atheling

Where royalties are being sought from named party for publishing the entire works of Chesterton in a demonstrably bad faith effort to make pithy and witty retorts to those who party identifies as anti-papists posters on the TBJ. Demonstrable, in as other than Chesterton lifted text, there is little pithiness and no wit to be found anywhere in party's posted retorts.

Finding:

One person's free speech is sometimes another person's royalties.

@atheling

I had an undergraduate at Georgetown when I was a TA for a Western Civ 101 course, the first paper he handed in was entirely a collection of quoted passages from the readings with all  the required quotation marks. The only words of his own were a few conjunctions here and there. He was genuinely shocked when he found out that that was not how to write an analytical report.  

I hate to shock you but I was not telling anyone to 'shut up,' not Chesterton, the founding fathers, not even you. You have a remarkable ability to misconstrue and misunderstand other people's words. I was simply suggesting with my own words and thoughts, that when one debates the concept of free speech one might be more effective using one own words rather trying to beat your opponents to death with quotation marks and dead men talking.

It gets rather tiring when current day pundits and wannabe pundits continually dig up the words of the great and honorable to win every little debate they find themselves in. And don't delude yourself that you are simply quoting the greats because they get to the point quicker, you do it because you are a lazy writer , and what's worse a lazy reader and you can quote me on that.

I rest my case.

http://www.whataboutclients.com/archives/daumier_3lawyers.jpg

"No More, No More."

-Edgar Allan Poe

"The Raven"

You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one. - Rush Limbaugh

Why is this a concept that Europeans seem unable to grasp?

@ Frank Lee

The answer is obvious.  Because the European public at large does not value individual freedom as much as the American public still does.  It values (presumed) 'stability' and government benefits higher. This was not always the case.  I do believe that in my youth, say 1960, a Wilders-type trial would have been unthinkable in the Netherlands or Belgium.

Let's not kid ourselves.  If the United States consisted solely of the states of New York and California, the First Amendment would already be 'history'.   

More important, though, is why mere politicians in Europe are able to undermine European free speech.  If politicians in America tried to imprison or fine people for speaking their minds about political Islam, those politicians would be on their way out of office pronto.  The senatorial election in Massachusetts this week shows how intolerant even the moderate majority in America can be toward leftwing politicians when those politicians' anti-democratic agenda comes too close to fruition.  According to internal polling by the Republicans there, the number one issue swaying independent voters was the decision by the Democrats to try enemy combatants in civilian courts.  What exactly is the glitch in Europe that allows a political elite to undermine the democratic process?  Why aren't politicians afraid of defeat as in America?

We are in agreement:  if America had a Supreme Court that pretended the 1st amendment doesn't say what it clearly says, the amendment would be as useless as the European laws that are supposed to protect the content of European speech.  But the amendment does make it a bit more difficult for liberal judges to make such a pretence (they cannot, for example, claim that the 1st amendment is unconstitutional, as they might claim about a mere law protecting free speech). 

@ Atheling

I would agree with you as far as external threats are concerned, but not with regard to internal threats.  Surely, a society which is not willing to face up to external threats and employ its military to defend itself against them, such a society will not endure.  The empirical evidence on that score is overwhelming.

When it comes to internal threats, however, and specifically internal CULTURAL trends, then I am pretty sure that the Second Amendment will prove useless.  If, the culture or the population at large would continue to vote into power (both in the Executive and in the Legislature), a party and/or individuals which do not respect freedom of political speech, then the judiciary's independence will gradually be lost through the appointments process, and the current situation in Europe will be replicated. Once the government is run by 'nondemocrats' and they control the monopoly of 'official' violence through the police and military, then individual ownership of weapons will be useless. Recalcitrant individuals and groups will be picked off separately.

This is not an argument for nor against the Second Amendment. It is simply an expression of disbelief in the efficacy of the 2nd Amendment to be able to preserve freedom IF the public were consistently to vote for a party of intolerant 'nondemocratic-minded' people. Ultimately, freedom depends on the evolution of the culture, i.e. on respect for fair rules, and NOT on the rules themselves. When it comes to internal threats to freedom, the battle has to be fought primarily in the democratic political process, but fundamentally in the culture at large and especially in the educational system. You cannot maintain freedom in a culture that does not value it (any more).

@ F Lee

It's not the 1st Amendment as such that preserves freedom, but rather the continued cultural acceptance of the 1st Amendment.  The 1 st Amendment is a constitutional provision, i.e. it is a 'rule', a command (if you will), but if people (especially politicians) do not respect it then it can easily become 'dead letter'.

Most of Europe has similar constitutional provisions that are supposed to preserve 'free political speech'. But they have also enacted 'ordinary' laws that effectively undermine free speech, and their 'Supreme Courts' have not stood up and defended their 'constitutions'.  The Wilders trial is just one of many 'results' of that cultural degradation. Similar trends are at work in the USA.

As I see it, the difference between Europe and America today is that in the USA it is still culturally accepted that the CONTENT of speech should not (or never) be criminilized, whereas in Europe the bulk of society 'accepts' that certain specific content itself can be made unlawful. On both continents it is accepted that the CIRCUMSTANCES of speech can be regulated in a variety of ways. By circumstances I mean things like the manner, the place, the vehicle etc...of speech.

Yesterday's Supreme Court decision (by a 5 to 4 vote) in the USA, which undermines the McCain-Feingold restrictions on political financing, was a step in the right direction. But, the narrowness of the vote illustrates that what happenend in Europe could also happen in the USA in the future, if Obama-types could make more Supreme Court appointments. After all, the distinction between content and circumstances of speech can become a moot point when practical 'restrictions' become so extensive that it becomes difficult to 'communicate' one's speech content to others.

Ultimately, freedom is not preserved by legal rules and constitutions, but rather by broad cultural acceptance that the CONTENT of any speech should be beyond criminal law.

is the only counter deterrent to the poisonous influences of Marxist Liberalism and the ambitions of medieval Islamists.

All Christian denominations across the world need to immediately form outreach projects in order to unite as one body for the purpose of preserving AND upholding the Christian identity and civilization of the West.

It will mean a concerted and forceful programme of ousting the Marxist Liberal NWO regime which has been conspiring with the Muslim world since the 1970s, to destroy what is left of the Christian world. We must not forget that the Muslim world would not have been so empowered and subsequently emboldened had it not been for the planned destruction and usurpation of the West by Marxist conspirators immediately following the end of WW11.

The postwar scramble for sustained fuel supplies in the shape of black gold was merely the excuse they needed to open the floodgates of Muslim invasion into the West as a means of hammering the final nail into its coffin.

Marxist Liberals must be made to pay for their crimes of Treason, Subversion AND Sedition with their lives.

Rise up Christians and do not be afraid to do whatever is deemed necessary to take back not only Europe and the rest of the Western world, but also, in the fullness of time, those lands lost to Islam over previous centuries.

Thank God for the 1st amendment.  Thank God for the 1st amendment.  Thank God for the 1st amendment.

What happens in that Dutch court room will have a major impact on the freedom of all of Europe. If Wilders is convicted, freedom in practically all forms will vanish like a cloud of smoke. If one cannot speak freely, there is little other freedom at all. If Wilders is convicted, every European is only a whisker away from a similar conviction.

These men are confined to the political wilderness, helplessly watching the advance of evil across Europe.  Others will decide whether their warnings will be heeded, as Churchill's were in the eleventh hour, or be drowned out by the coming storm, as were those of the pre-war German resistance.

This is obvious that Islam might be countered only by strong religious Catholic offensive. I'm tired of hearing about defensively minded 'democracy defending' losers.  You people have absolutely no chance to survive because everything that you believe  reduce to to utopian concept of democracy. This illusion is good for idealist teenagers in high-school, mature people should have know better.   Please continue to shake your assess and complain about threat of some primitive religion.