Hillary Clinton on Internet Freedoms

Hillary Clinton has some very interesting policy statements in recent times, if it comes to issues of religious freedom and freedom of expression, particularly in relation to how they are on the network, are expressed. In recent months she has been to associate to the Obama administration’s policy on Internet freedom, and to explain these diplomatic policy for the U.S. government. It seems that freedom of expression on the Internet is one of the international issues that other countries have on their agenda in which they interact with the U.S. added.

Clinton began responding to the 2009 Report on International Religious Freedom. In his speech, stressed that people remember the Clinton double values of both the American Bill of Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights weds: religion and freedom of expression. It recognizes the people to practice their own religion or not practice as an absolute right. But Clinton also pointed out that my man should be allowed to criticize religion if they want, and no prohibition on their writings or censored. The people have every right to express their own criticism as well, even if they contain negative comments. Government involvement should be in the field of protection of individuals against discrimination and the achievement of minority religious groups.
[Read more...]

Individual and Group Rights in the United States

The terminology is usually of minorities by the majority of the language considered to be “worth less” than the language of the majority, an idea that can be internalized by the speakers of minority languages. However, a minority language as a symbol used to identity and a source of pride for the speakers to speak, and their right to keep the minority language can claim. As part of the United States, the terminology is English majority and the minority languages are the languages of immigrants, such as Spanish or Yiddish, and Native American groups, such as Navajo and Yaqui.

In the debate over bilingualism in society, it is useful to briefly refer to the ideas of individual and collective rights. While the U.S. has a long history of emphasis on individual rights, collective rights have also been repeatedly recognized. For example, free speech and religious freedom individual rights that are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, but recognizes the Americans’ with Disabilities Act, a certain group of people and gives them certain rights. Similarly, many laws treat children as a group. In these cases, guaranteed membership in a group, certain of the rights of those of the individual.

In the case of retention of the language, some communities as a minority have the right to maintain and revive the minority language recognized, but extend this right to all languages of minority groups (eg, Welsh in the United Kingdom and the indigenous languages in the United States). Languages are not static, and their existence depends on the willingness of the parties to not only speak the language, but also to impart to the younger generations.

If fewer people speak a language, the terminology and the associated culture is threatened with extinction, a process of how to transfer the language known. Language revitalization is reversing language shift and language maintenance concerned relates to the prevention of erosion of the language or amended. These distinctions are in terms of bilingualism in society important because they reflect the processes of growth and the continued use of two languages within a community.

Protests, Demonstrations, Public Order, Rights, Restrictions

PROTESTS, DEMONSTRATIONS, MARCHES ~ DISORDER and CRIMINAL JUSTICE & PUBLIC ORDER LAWS

(Based on author’s site www.geocities.com/prtsdm)

The UK has not a written constitution, nor a Bill of Rights; but it is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it has incorporated into its law by the Human Rights Act 1988 the European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 10 & 11 of which set out the general freedom to protest and demonstrate -to gather to express a collective viewpoint.

These freedoms are subject to not being exercised for unlawful purposes or in unlawful ways contained mainly in such laws of England as the Public Order Acts 1936 & 1986 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Under Public Order Act 1936 it is an offence for people to meet only if within a mile of the Houses of the Parliament when the Parliament is sitting, in numbers more than fifty; and the Department of the Environment has considered whether to continue to allow in Hyde Park and at Trafalgar Square public meetings.

The right of assembly is subject to giving written notice of it to the police stating the date and time, the route, and the name and address of the organiser. The police may, if it considers that a public meeting may cause serious disorder or serious damage to property or serious disruption of the life of the community, make public meetings subject to conditions in respect of the venue and the duration of them and the maximum numbers that may meet and the route -they may dictate them; or they may ban public meetings, and in Kent -v- Metropolitan Police Commissioner 1981 (a wedding procession) the Court, although it considered the reasons of the police to be meagre, it could not overturn it unless, s. 12 Public Order Act 1986, they had not given any reason at all.

The Public Order Act 1936 prohibited the wearing of political uniforms publicly if not for a ceremonial or special occasion, s. 1 Public Order Act 1986 also prohibits that if for the purpose of promoting any political object, and O’Moran -v- DPP 1975 was about the IRA.

The former Act made it an offence to use abusive or threatening language in public meetings; in the latter s. 3 is about ‘affray’ referring to violence as being that which would cause a person of reasonable courage to fear for his safety, s. 2 is ‘violent disorder’ if affray by three or more together, s. 5 is ‘riot’ if affray by twelve or more persons together, under the Criminal Justice Act 1994 ‘raves’ is organising a rave after having been ordered to disperse, and ‘aggravated trespass’ is disrupting others’ lawful pursuits on private land.

There have been interest groups for the protection and betterment of human assembly rights, and now British Courts also can deal with alleged breaches of those rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 –which allows also to pursue them in the European Human Rights Court.

But, that the former Public Order Act resulted from the British Fascist Party’s attacks, and that O’Moran was in relation to terrorism and that there are exceptions and expectations of Britain by Europe, reasonably rules out concern over the exercise of these rights in England lawfully.

The above are an outline and while laws change may be basically a useful guideline about protests and demonstrations.

The author has a website at: http://www.geocities.com.com/eoa_uk




By: Eren