Europeans have a trash view of rights and freedoms in general.
yeah they only invented those ideas...
How can they invent something that is inherent to all people? The trash Euro view is that they created these rights. The correct American view is that these rights are inherent and finally their suppression was lifted.
what on god's green earth are you blathering about? read a book demartino holy shit you might start with aristotle, cicero, hobbes or locke or maybe Dr. Seuss i don't know. they (sans the Seuss) came up with and developed the idea that we have these inherent rightsnevermind the fact that the "americans" you're talking about were europeans who had recently taken a cruise
The Washington driving a Dodge might be a bit on insight into how serious I am about this.But yes, there is a tendency in European systems to view rights as being granted by the state rather than something inherently possessed.
“When we talk about First Amendment issues, free speech and protecting speech, I think this is a great way to frame it, by looking at how the world’s first great democracy viewed free speech,” Rosenthal said. “We don’t have that type of character and fitness exam. I argue, because of that, anyone can say what they please. We’re not insulating people or licensing them to speak. In some ways that’s good. In other ways it’s not.”
“Our free speech permissiveness was born of colonial suppression. Because of that, we’ve enshrined it in our Constitution and in our jurisprudence,” Rosenthal said. “The Supreme Court has regularly extended protections of free speech to a point, that I argue, goes too far.”
Rosenthal concluded that differing traditions in the United States and other parts of the world have led to a point where powerful American corporations are attempting to export their cultural and legal philosophies around the world, which should call for a re-examination of those traditions and prepare society for disagreements between the traditions.
Paragraph 2 of Article 10 enounces the legitimate aims that can justify the restriction of freedom of expression: “The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of thereputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
Omg Pfizer lied about the number of individuals who died during thir COVID vaccine trials.The actual number of deaths during the clinical trials was 21 not 16 as was originally reported.This was four more deaths than the clinical trials control group.https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/huge-breaking-news-pfizer-hid-public-number-deaths-covid-clinical-trials-actual-number-21-6-reported-4-unvaccinated-group/?utm_source=Gab&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons
The Washington driving a Dodge might be a bit on insight into how serious I am about this.
You left out this part, Martini."He points out that one of the Supreme Court’s most ardent defenders of free speech protections, Hugo Black, was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan. Naturally, a person with such views would fight for robust protections of all manner of speech, Rosenthal said. Such extensions of protected speech can result in an intolerant minority pushing out a tolerant majority in society, he wrote.
The differing traditions have led to today, where those largely controlling who can speak and how they can do so are social media companies and giant technology corporations. The most prominent of those are not only American, they are concentrated in Silicon Valley, one small section not representative of the rest of the nation and not always knowledgeable of other cultural and legal traditions, Rosenthal said. Because of that, the current era would be a good time to re-examine American free speech traditions."
