@soccerfan: Sheehan's T-shirt would be banned from Belgian parliament (if the message on her T-shirt would be relevant to Belgian politics) as it is "a sign of approval or disapproval".
@soccerfan: "I am convinced that nobody displaying a political message in the Belgian parliament would be arrested."
For your information, article 176 of the bylaw [PDF] of the Belgian Chamber of Representatives states: "As long as the session lasts, all persons seated in the public gallery should remain seated, with their heads uncovered, and in silence. It is forbidden to give any sign of approval or disapproval. Anyone who disturbs the order will be removed from the gallery immediately. [...]"
But I don't think the Sheehan case or the Belgian Chamber is relevant. In my opinion, freedom of speech means that you can say whatever you want, but not necessarily wherever you want. You can say whatever you want through the channels that you create yourself or through the channels that are willing to carry your message. It does not mean that you have the right to force your message upon channels or places that do not want to carry it.
Oh, and if your comment is a reaction to the article "Muslim Radical Defends Freedom of Speech", why didn't you post it under that article?
Luc,
Cindy Sheehan did not disturb the order; she simply wore an anti-war message on her shirt. She did not scream, push, or annoy anyone. And article 176 of the bylaw of the Belgian parliament does not ban the display of dissenting opinions. As the free citizen of a free country anyone should be able to voice their opinions anywhere. Remember, in the former communist countries of Eastern Europe, people could criticize the regime in private, but that did not make those regimes democratic. Your statement "It does not mean that you have the right to force your message upon channels or places that do not want to carry it" is totally irrelevant as expressing your opinions does not mean that you force them on others. If this was the case, there would be no opposition parties in any parliament, there would be only ruling parties, and that is a dictatorship.
You are right, my response is a comment to Paul Belien's article, but I could not find a link to it.
In his article, "Muslim Radical Defends Freedom of Speech," Paul Belien states that, "In America people are free to say and think whatever they like, however offensive this may be to others. In Europe this right no longer exists." Really? Tell that to Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son in Iraq, who was arrested by the Capitol police in Washington just before the State of the Union speech of the president for wearing a shirt with a message protesting the war in Iraq. This arrest clearly violates the first amendment of the US constitution. I am convinced that nobody displaying a political message in the Belgian parliament would be arrested. The reality is that the freedom of speech has died in the US, but is still very much alive in Europe. The best proof is the publication of the Mohammad cartoons in a growing number of European countries.
Sheehan
Submitted by Luc Van Braekel on Sun, 2006-02-05 03:00.
@soccerfan: Sheehan's T-shirt would be banned from Belgian parliament (if the message on her T-shirt would be relevant to Belgian politics) as it is "a sign of approval or disapproval".
Sheehan
Submitted by Luc Van Braekel on Sun, 2006-02-05 01:50.
@soccerfan: "I am convinced that nobody displaying a political message in the Belgian parliament would be arrested."
For your information, article 176 of the bylaw [PDF] of the Belgian Chamber of Representatives states: "As long as the session lasts, all persons seated in the public gallery should remain seated, with their heads uncovered, and in silence. It is forbidden to give any sign of approval or disapproval. Anyone who disturbs the order will be removed from the gallery immediately. [...]"
But I don't think the Sheehan case or the Belgian Chamber is relevant. In my opinion, freedom of speech means that you can say whatever you want, but not necessarily wherever you want. You can say whatever you want through the channels that you create yourself or through the channels that are willing to carry your message. It does not mean that you have the right to force your message upon channels or places that do not want to carry it.
Oh, and if your comment is a reaction to the article "Muslim Radical Defends Freedom of Speech", why didn't you post it under that article?
Re: Sheehan
Submitted by soccerfan on Sun, 2006-02-05 02:51.
Luc,
Cindy Sheehan did not disturb the order; she simply wore an anti-war message on her shirt. She did not scream, push, or annoy anyone. And article 176 of the bylaw of the Belgian parliament does not ban the display of dissenting opinions. As the free citizen of a free country anyone should be able to voice their opinions anywhere. Remember, in the former communist countries of Eastern Europe, people could criticize the regime in private, but that did not make those regimes democratic. Your statement "It does not mean that you have the right to force your message upon channels or places that do not want to carry it" is totally irrelevant as expressing your opinions does not mean that you force them on others. If this was the case, there would be no opposition parties in any parliament, there would be only ruling parties, and that is a dictatorship.
You are right, my response is a comment to Paul Belien's article, but I could not find a link to it.
Freedom of speech is
Submitted by Patriot on Sat, 2006-02-04 23:54.
Freedom of speech is over-rated, if you say the wrong thing you should be prepared to pay the consequences. (Especially in a time of war)
Re: Muslim Radical Defends Freedom of Speech
Submitted by soccerfan on Sat, 2006-02-04 23:36.
In his article, "Muslim Radical Defends Freedom of Speech," Paul Belien states that, "In America people are free to say and think whatever they like, however offensive this may be to others. In Europe this right no longer exists." Really? Tell that to Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son in Iraq, who was arrested by the Capitol police in Washington just before the State of the Union speech of the president for wearing a shirt with a message protesting the war in Iraq. This arrest clearly violates the first amendment of the US constitution. I am convinced that nobody displaying a political message in the Belgian parliament would be arrested. The reality is that the freedom of speech has died in the US, but is still very much alive in Europe. The best proof is the publication of the Mohammad cartoons in a growing number of European countries.