RCC and The DaVinci Code

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Probably because US law allows for limitless slander/libel against public figures - any legal action is pointless.

Maybe because they're Americans they understand how important Freedom of Speech is. Or maybe as people with a strong faith they don't particulary care what Dan Brown or anybody else writes. Or maybe a bit of both.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Maybe because they're Americans they understand how important Freedom of Speech is. Or maybe as people with a strong faith they don't particulary care what Dan Brown or anybody else writes. Or maybe a bit of both.

Maybe.

Do you think it is important to have Freedom of Speech to the extent that American law seems to permit (especially as it relates to public figures)? From what you've written, it seems to me that a public figure has virtually no rights at all about what is said/written about them.

Interesting aside - does this mean they have no right to privacy either?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Maybe.

Do you think it is important to have Freedom of Speech to the extent that American law seems to permit (especially as it relates to public figures)? From what you've written, it seems to me that a public figure has virtually no rights at all about what is said/written about them.

Interesting aside - does this mean they have no right to privacy either?

Yes and more so.

No it doesn't.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes and more so.

Why?

EDIT: How come (re: privacy)? From what you've said, it seems to me that I can publish a Senator's personal details and/or history (for instance) and face no legal sanction.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why?

EDIT: How come? From what you've said, it seems to me that I can publish a Senator's personal details and/or history (for instance) and face no legal sanction.

Freedom of Speech ain't very free if Big Daddy can say you're allowed to say this but not that.

Yes you can. But I would not consider such as part of a "right to privacy".

Originally posted by no1marauder
Freedom of Speech ain't very free if Big Daddy can say you're allowed to say this but not that.

Yes you can. But I would not consider such as part of a "right to privacy".

1. If what you say is true, then why does the US have copyright laws? Or laws that protect intellectual property and other confidential information? Why have libel/slander laws at all? Clearly, Big Daddy is allowed to tell you what you can and cannot say in these cases.

2. What does 'right to privacy' mean if a person cannot have privacy?

Originally posted by lucifershammer

2. What does 'right to privacy' mean if a person cannot have privacy?

For example, the police cannot demand to search your home on a whim, even if you're a public figure.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. If what you say is true, then why does the US have copyright laws? Or laws that protect intellectual property and other confidential information? Why have libel/slander laws at all? Clearly, Big Daddy is allowed to tell you what you can and cannot say in these cases.

2. What does 'right to privacy' mean if a person cannot have privacy?

Since you don't understand the concept of Fundamental Rights and where they are derived from, it's difficult to explain these things to you. Suffice to say, that intellectual property laws are regulations of economic activity and economic activity, as a creation of society, may be regulated by society. But those rights derived from the Natural Law which are personal cannot be so regulated.

I'm not interested in semantic games; the "right to privacy" is a description of various protections of personal autonomy. What public figures do is not one of them.

EDIT: Here's a brief overview:

Information Privacy, which involves the establishment of rules governing the collection and handling of personal data such as credit information and medical records;


Bodily privacy, which concerns the protection of people's physical selves against invasive procedures such as drug testing and cavity searches;


Privacy of communications, which covers the security and privacy of mail, telephones, email and other forms of communication; and


Territorial privacy, which concerns the setting of limits on intrusion into the domestic and other environments such as the workplace or public space.

http://www.gilc.org/privacy/survey/intro.html

Originally posted by no1marauder
Since you don't understand the concept of Fundamental Rights and where they are derived from, it's difficult to explain these things to you. Suffice to say, that intellectual property laws are regulations of economic activity and economic activity, as a creation of society, may be regulated by society. But those rights derived from the Natural Law which ...[text shortened]... such as the workplace or public space.

http://www.gilc.org/privacy/survey/intro.html

Doesn't it matter that the " history" Dan Brown wrote about is public knowlege?

Originally posted by frogstomp
Doesn't it matter that the " history" Dan Brown wrote about is public knowlege?

Consider--the Code is a best-seller. The Bible was a best-selling book in its day. Think there's a link? Hmm.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Since you don't understand the concept of Fundamental Rights and where they are derived from, it's difficult to explain these things to you. Suffice to say, that intellectual property laws are regulations of economic activity and economic activity, as a creation of society, may be regulated by society. But those rights derived from the Natural Law which such as the workplace or public space.

http://www.gilc.org/privacy/survey/intro.html

Originally posted by no1marauder
Since you don't understand the concept of Fundamental Rights and where they are derived from, it's difficult to explain these things to you.

That sounds like a Secret Decoder Ring defence, no1.

Suffice to say, that intellectual property laws are regulations of economic activity and economic activity, as a creation of society, may be regulated by society. But those rights derived from the Natural Law which are personal cannot be so regulated.

The regulation of economic activity (in this case) cannot be done without regulating something covered under a Fundamental right. You claim the latter cannot be regulated - yet it clearly is.

I'm not interested in semantic games; the "right to privacy" is a description of various protections of personal autonomy.

I'm not interested in semantic games either, but a "right to privacy" that does not protect privacy seems, to an ignorant superstitious bumpkin like me, a contradiction.

What public figures do is not one of them.

What about what non-public figures do?

EDIT: From the link you provided:

No-one should be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks on his honour or reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interferences or attacks.

From what you've said, that's not true of the US.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]Since you don't understand the concept of Fundamental Rights and where they are derived from, it's difficult to explain these things to you.

That sounds like a Secret Decoder Ring defence, no1.

Suffice to say, that intellectual property laws are regulations of economic activity and economic acti What public figures do is not one of them.

What about what non-public figures do?[/b]

Go screw yourself. I've explained the Lockean basis of Fundamental Rights many times here, but you persist in pretending you don't understand them. There's no "Secret Decoder", just a stubbornness and/or stupidity on your part to attempt to understand the basic philosophy behind the US political system.

The rest is more semantic games; I've told you I don't care about them. Yes if you must have your nitpicking point, regulations of economic activity sometimes regulate speech which are, after all, important to economic activity. But they do not regulate Freedom of Speech as it has been understood for hundreds of years. If you won't be bothered to pay any attention to what that term means, I can't help you.

Please read the excerpt from the link I gave above if you can't grasp what aspects of "privacy" the right to privacy is concerned with.

EDIT: Your edit is rather infuriating; it is taken, without attribution, from a convention that doesn't apply to the US. Please try to actually read what you're quoting. Europeans like the British simply do not put the same weight on Freedom of Speech as Americans do.

EDIT2: Actually it's from the Universal declaration of Human Rights which is a document which is A) Non-legal and B) Sloppy in its terminology about what a "right" is (it includes health care and similar things) and poor in its definitions about actual rights.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Go screw yourself. I've explained the Lockean basis of Fundamental Rights many times here, but you persist in pretending you don't understand them. There's no "Secret Decoder", just a stubbornness and/or stupidity on your part to attempt to understand the basic philosophy behind the US political system.

The rest is more semantic games; I've to if you can't grasp what aspects of "privacy" the right to privacy is concerned with.

1. Don't substitute insult for argument, no1. If you have an argument to make, make it without the lace and frills.

2. Does the Freedom of Speech "as it has been understood for hundreds of years" include the freedom to maliciously slander public figures? That, after all, is where we started.

3. The link you gave me explicitly defends the view I've been positing about the 'right to privacy' all along. Apparently your precious US political system does not recognise it.

EDIT: You're becoming incoherent. First you post a link so that I can educate myself about what 'right to privacy' really means then, when I point out it agrees with my initial understanding of 'right to privacy', you're denouncing it. Get a grip, no1.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Go screw yourself. I've explained the Lockean basis of Fundamental Rights many times here, but you persist in pretending you don't understand them. There's no "Secret Decoder", just a stubbornness and/or stupidity on your part to attempt to understand the basic philosophy behind the US political system.

The rest is more semantic games; I've to ...[text shortened]... ealth care and similar things) and poor in its definitions about actual rights.

Maraudian BS.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. Don't substitute insult for argument, no1. If you have an argument to make, make it without the lace and frills.

2. Does the Freedom of Speech "as it has been understood for hundreds of years" include the freedom to maliciously slander public figures? That, after all, is where we started.

3. The link you gave me explicitly defends the view I' to privacy' all along. Apparently your precious US political system does not recognise it.

1. Your "Decoder Ring" crap was an insult and you know it. Stick with discussing the matter or stop playing the martyr when you get back what you dish out.

2. We most certainly DID NOT start there. We started with some claim that the RCC or Opus Dei or somebody could maintain an action to stop the showing of a film because its content displeases them. Of course, your restatement is just a bunch of emotionally charged BS.

3. I gave the link for its discussion of privacy; I do not endorse every single citation in it on a substantive basis. The language in the DHR is too vague as a standard to restrict speech; almost anything could be poured into it. US law is far more protective of speech than YOUR interpretation would be. No surprise there.

EDIT: You're deranged. You found one sentence that could arguably agree with your point and have tried to twist it to make it sound like an article on the right to privacy was REALLY concerned with libel/slander! Amazing but typical.