2 men arrested for watching video of Koran burning

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So what you are saying is.... These guys might have just been guilty of viewing an unapproved website?

Does the UK have laws against visiting "baD web sites"?

Danno, I checked the constitution and also the Federalist papers and there was NOT ONE mention of the internet in anything the founding fathers said. The internet is not covered by the constitution and the government can restrict it any way they want...right?

[Danno 1,228]

Danno would be in favor of this development. He is against people having rights. He thinks what we can do, watch, say should be determined by the majority and what is popular. MC would say it is because the UN says so. Too bad for the watchers of this video they were in a country that does not respect individual rights.

Can we be your disciples?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If the story is bogus or greatly exaggerated, then any conclusions drawn from it are fanciful as well.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Can we be your disciples?

Those jobs are filled.

You can, however, apply your "principals" evenly to all issues, not to just the things you happen to like.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

If the story is bogus or greatly exaggerated, then any conclusions drawn from it are fanciful as well.

Conclusions are not the same as principals. Pricipals should apply equally. If one thing, for example, is not protected because it was never mentioned byu the founding fathers, then that would apply to ANYTHING not mentioned by the founding fathers. Correct? If something must have been discussed by the founding fathers in order to be a "right" then the internet is not a "right".

Danno, like most political hacks from either side of the "aisle" apply their principals only to the things they wish to control in our lives.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So what happens if the people whose views you have assumed on the basis of an article of dubious provenance turn out not to have those views?

You're jumping to rather extravagant conclusions.

[Peikko 1,575]

Danno would be in favor of this development. He is against people having rights. He thinks what we can do, watch, say should be determined by the majority and what is popular. MC would say it is because the UN says so. Too bad for the watchers of this video they were in a country that does not respect individual rights.

You seem to be having some kind of breakdown Gary. What part of, this story is bogus eludes you? What part of countries that are signed up to the protocols of the UN's bill of Human rights are bound by those protocols eludes you? Clearly, rather a lot. Never mind, you are not alone in this. All rights are commonly determined - you have no rights unless the majority allows you to have some. In the US you have two protections, the US constitution and the Human Rights convention, the same is true in the UK (although clearly the UK constitution is different), and for your information watching U-Tube videos in a pub does not contravene any rights in the UK UNLESS the video is promoting something that is illegal. For example, if you were observed in a pub enjoying kiddy porn, you could be arrested. Then again, you could be arrested in the US for not only watching kiddy porn in a bar but in your own bedroom too. Weird huh?

Edited September 22, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Pooky 3,825]

Danno, like most political hacks from either side of the "aisle" apply their principals only to the things they wish to control in our lives.

Well, they do say that in politics, money talks. I guess that's why they would use their principal.

Us ordinary folk prefer to rely on principles to determine which policies we believe in.

[Ban Hammer 13,469]

Well, they do say that in politics, money talks. I guess that's why they would use their principal.

Us ordinary folk prefer to rely on principles to determine which policies we believe in.

get em pooky bare!

[Harsh_77 718]

"Land of the free indeed"

I never knew UK was called "LAND OF FREE" lol