Lindens Please Help The Aussies

I worry more about the banks. The mob will just break my legs or kill me. Family is usually off limits to them.

Yeah, it has so much to do with history. On the one hand, we have French Canada, with an inherited set of pre-Revolutionary French values that they only really broke free of a half century ago . . . and "English" Canada (which is increasingly not "English" at all, thank god), which was founded by the losers of your Revolution, and has built its traditional values very much upon the continually evolving British ones.

British constitutionalism is, like "common law," built on the assumption that evolution of political and cultural values is ongoing, and needs to be accommodated: that's why Britain doesn't have a written "Constitution," and Canada has only a very vague and weak one. From that perspective, the American Constitution looks like a relic, and sort of fossil preserved from a particular historical and cultural moment that occurred in the last half of the eighteenth century.

On the other hand, you have, as a result, a stability and clarity of political "vision" that we lack. We spend a lot of our time foundering, searching for what we "believe," because this is constantly changing. Personally, I'm a good "founderer": I don't believe in absolutes, and like being uncertain all of the time. But the US model certainly has its advantages.

I think it's time we moved on from cookies . . . Brownies, perhaps?

Juries have to apply the law, as directed by the judge, of course. What I'm saying is that, once the learned judge has told them that -- for example -- it's against the law to possess indecent images of children and that the law provides the following defences, it's best to leave it to them to decide whether or not the images are, in their view, indecent, and, if they are, whether any of the defences apply.

You say, "juries themselves reflect whatever cultural values are prevalent at the moment" as if that's a bad thing. What else are juries and laws going to reflect?

Laws -- which constrain how we behave towards each other and how we resolve disputes -- are self-evidently cultural practices and juries, comprising people, obvious reflect different aspects of the culture/subcultures from which they are drawn. They also, in my experience, are -- generally, though not always -- pretty good at stepping back from their immediate prejudices, likes and dislikes and reaching a decision at least as sensible as one 12 legislators would reach (one reason you have 12 people drawn at random and ask them to reach a consensus, of course).

And I don't see the point, I'm afraid, of your example of spousal rape. Yes, the law didn't used to recognise it. So that matter would never have got as far as a jury (who are, at least in the UK, ultimately permitted to bring in any verdict they want, no matter what the judge says -- ). Laws, like any other cultural practice, can be changed.

It's not violence, it's a threat. And a very serious one. Some possible responses:

"Go ahead, pull the trigger...asshole."

"My wallet's in my purse."

"Help! Police!"

Clever martial arts move, sweeping the pistol away from your head and breaking their nose with the heel of your other hand.

Shoot. (You DID have your pistol out as soon as you saw theirs, I hope)

Yes, it's up to you. It's ALWAYS up to you. Some people think of scenes like this one and decide that society should ban guns, so that this can never happen. It doesn't work. Some think we should ban all depictions of violence, so people won't get Wrong Ideas. That doesn't work, either.

Sorry, Innula, maybe I expressed myself poorly, or responded to your post from within a different context.

Basically, I agree with everything you say here.

I was just making the point, in a rather prolix and obviously not very clear way, that our use of juries, and our legal systems in general, are by definition acknowledgments of the fact that there are NO "absolute" rights and wrongs, no transcendent "good" and "evil," and that defining what is acceptable and what is not is always a question of making value judgements that reflect a sliding scale of what society, or a particular segment of it, has decided is, for that given moment in history, "acceptable."

Then why have juries? Jurors have the right and the duty to ignore the judge and to vote according to their conscience.

"The most famous nullification case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby. Despite the fact that Zenger clearly printed the alleged libels, the only issue the court said the jury was open to decide as the truth or falsity of the statements was ruled to be irrelevant, the jury returned with a verdict of "Not Guilty."

Jury nullification appeared at other times in our history when the government has tried to enforce morally repugnant or unpopular laws. In the early 1800s, nullification was practiced in cases brought under the Alien and Sedition Act. In the mid 1800s, northern juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of harboring slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws. And in the Prohibition Era of the 1930s, many juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of violating alcohol control laws. "http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html

To decide whether or not the person actually did it. Jurors don't have the power to decide whether what the person should or should not be illegal.

Sure, but generally juries' consciences and the law pretty much coincide. Off the top of my head, the only case in recent times in the UK when the jury felt they had to return a "perverse" decision was the Clive Ponting case .

So juries should have upheld the Fugitive Slave acts?
William Penn should have been found guilty of preaching Quakerism? (for a case from the British Isles)

We hear quite a few cases of "juror's remorse" in the US.

Actually, it was the meatspace casinos, racetracks, etc. who were upset about losing business to online places, especially online places outside the USA. Governments get their cut from gambling too.

As far as blocking SL (or any other particular site), how long will it take people to figure out proxies to log in with?

That's correct. Juries do sometimes take the law into their own hands, so to speak, but they are there to decide whether or not the person on trial is guilty of breaking the law.

All tentacles on the same beast.

Up to a point. I certainly believe there are some absolute rights and wrongs, but I also believe that's a theological rather than a legal matter, and one best left to the ultimate tribunal.

The reason, to my mind, for having a legal system is that it provides a way to regulate the disputes and conflicts that will inevitably arise when you have large numbers of intelligent people possessing free will going about their own affairs. That is, you have laws against murder and theft not because the Almighty is said to take a dim view of such activities but because it's pretty difficult to have a civilised society in which people can go around murdering each other and making off with each other's property without let or hindrance.

We will have to agree to disagree. I place the citizen as sovereign over the government. They work for us. If I don't agree with an action they take on my behalf, I am free to overrule it.

Its slick outside. Black ice is causing some minor fender benders and I fell on my butt walking out to the mailbox.


It comes down to ideology.

You hit on one of the points that Liberals try to make in the U.S. "The Constitution is too old to be of any applicable value in today's world." I only see that argument working in the case that a person holds political views that the government is there to control our personal lives and not protect our liberties. For people like myself; and I dare say a few others who have posted in this thread, the Constitution of the U.S. applies just as much to today as it did to the day it was written. The Constitution's function is to protect its citizens from the tyranny of an overzealous government. The language used; not the document itself, is archaic.

The Bill of Rights and the the amendment process was created to allow for social changes over time. Its function is to protect rights. It does not limit or restrict rights nor was it intended to like many people in today's political arena attempt to twist it toward.

Brownies sound good

I agree with you up to this point. It doesn't grant any rights. It protects rights that all humans have by birth (from God, nature, or the moon if you want)

I agree to disagree on that point And on this one too. Citizen are sovereign and have elected people to do the work of being sovereign for them. Each individual citizen can't pick and choose which bits s/he likes and which bits s/he rejects, except by electing people who agree with his/her point of view. You and I are not free to overrule the decisions that are made on behalf of the people as a whole, by the people who we elected to make those decisions for us. We can agree to disagree about that

More well put ty

I changed it and sent you a PM of an e-mail I just opened. I figured that I'll not throw more gas on the flame by posting it here.

Ohhh! Sorry to hear that! I nearly did a header the other day on some ice; I managed to stay upright, but wrenched my leg.

/me passes Rafe an inflatable doughnut . . .


Yeah, it does come down to ideology. I guess my view would be that the framework within which ideologies exist has shifted a lot. For instance, when it was framed, the US Constitution was unquestionably a "left wing" document. And, despite the admitted problems of a simple left-right spectrum, I think it would more properly be placed on the right wing today. So the world, and the larger frame of reference for such a document, has changed around the Constitution. The Amendments are, however, an admittedly pretty effective response to that.

(Although, now, of course, we could launch into a discussion of the merits of the ERA . . . )


With or without icing? I prefer without.

ty

no ty

me too

I have many friends feeling the effect of this, maybe something will happen where the restriction will be lifted, though I doubt it'll happen. Time will tell I suppose.

Good luck Aussies.

Precisely. Conroy's argument in favour of this censorship is piss-weak and has much to do with keeping self-righteous independents like Fielding onside with the Government. But I won't bore everyone with Australian politics - our politicians do that all by themselves.

Any fellow Aussies who want to make their voice heard should email Stephen Conroy by visiting GetUp's GreatFirewallOfAustralia campaign page at http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet&id=892

It wouldn't hurt to email the new Shadow Communications Minister, Tony Smith, as well, because the Government will need support in the Senate to get the scheme passed.
http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet&id=893

The Rest of the World - if you'd just like a bit of a laugh, have a look at GetUp's anti-censorship ad at https://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet&id=684

That's to say, it would be a bit of a laugh, if it wasn't so serious...

Thanks for the laugh, except that this leaves me feeling quite ill.

I would just like to make a few points here

This is NOT law in Australia, the government merely intends on goign ahead and putting this legislation before parliment. This means it need to pass both the Lower and upper houses before it is implimented in Australia as Law.

this is not to say we shouldnt be concerned by we shouldnt panic.

The current Labour government does not hold a majority in the Senate, and many of the Senate as spoken out against these laws as they currently stand. to the extent that this law is unlikely to go through the Senate without significant changes.

Secondly there are actually going to be two levels of 'censorship'. The firs which will be mandatory will involve illegal sites suchs as child prnography (this may include things like euthanasia sites etc as thsi is illegal in Ausralia).

The second however is what most of the sites on the leaked'black list' come under and is likely what SL will come under. This level of sensorship will be able to be opted out of.


Im not saying this is a great idea (i think it stinks) however the OMG the sky is falling thing isnt needed, we can still access SL if this goes through