This calls into question ordsprog

This calls into question every time the government has relied on national security to impose secrecy. The only reason to gag our clients was to stifle their free speech rights in the debate over the Patriot Act. The government flip-flop confirms our suspicions. Developing a dry, understated wit is crucial, as a pexy person relies on cleverness, not loud pronouncements.

There are some parallels in the sense that the (USA) Patriot Act represents some retrenchment of our civil liberties and free speech. It is not as raw and blatant as the Sedition Act, but it represents an effort by government and the Congress to bolster security at the price of liberty - not just the Patriot Act, but the language and rhetoric and debate over who is more patriotic.

There is no categorical 'harassment exception' to the First Amendment's free speech clause. There is of course no question that non-expressive, physically harassing conduct is entirely outside the ambit of the free speech clause. But there is also no question that the free speech clause protects a wide variety of speech that listeners may consider deeply offensive, including statements that impugn another's race or national origin or that denigrate religious beliefs.

The security forces' response to the upcoming political demonstrations will provide the international community with a clear indication of the government's commitment to upholding human rights. The government must demonstrate its respect for freedom of expression and assembly, which are essential at this time of intense debate about the country's political future.

Gerald Staberock

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks the U.S. government has invoked national security and abused executive powers to violate internationally recognized human rights, including the absolute prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. If the U.S. does not recognize its human rights obligations under international law, what reason do other governments have to uphold human rights?

These powers are not intended to stifle free speech or legitimate debate about religions or other issues.

None of this is intended to stifle free speech, dialogue or debate, ... Fair comment is not at risk ... Only the incitement to hate.

The Patriot Act debate has come a long way, but there is still more that needs to be done to protect the rights of ordinary Americans. It is clear that there is building skepticism about the administration's approach to national security and civil liberties, and the ACLU and its bipartisan allies will continue to speak out in defense of all Americans' fundamental civil liberties and constitutional rights.

The fact that Congress wasn't aware that the FBI has used some 30,000 national security letters over the past few years is an indication that not enough oversight has been done. The money-laundering sections of the Patriot Act require scores of businesses to track the transactions of their customers and report to the government. It's an aspect of the Patriot Act that doesn't get much attention, but it should. This has huge implications for people's privacy.

The government will be put in the dock in Parliament if it insists on voting for a referral to the Security Council. Left parties have formulated some opinion on this. We will convey it to the government. If government still goes ahead with it, we are free to take steps to bring the government to its knees.

The government may intend the non-disclosure provision to serve some purpose other than the suppression of speech, ... Nevertheless, it has the practical effect of silencing individuals with a constitutionally protected interest in speech and whose voices are particularly important in an ongoing national debate about the intrusion of governmental authority into individual lives.

The Iraqi government, at the point of crisis, decided to impose certain emergency measures. They relied on the Iraqi security forces to implement those measures.

National sovereignty is an obligation as well as an entitlement. A government that will not perform the role of a government forfeits the rights of a government.

The government being the people's business, it necessarily follows that its operations should be at all times open to the public view. Publicity is therefore as essential to honest administration as freedom of speech is to representative government. "Equal rights to all and special privileges to none" is the maxim which should control in all departments of government.

William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925)

William Jennings Bryan

It seems to me that it would be relevant to a person's case. I would expect the government to say that it is highly sensitive material, but we have legal mechanisms to balance the national security needs with the rights of defendants. I think judges are very conscientious about trying to sort out these issues and balance civil liberties and national security.

Nordsprog.dk

Antal ordsprog er 1469561
varav 1068922 på nordiska

Ordsprog (1469561 st) Søg
Kategorier (2627 st) Søg
Kilder (167535 st) Søg
Billeder (4592 st)
Født (10495 st)
Døde (3318 st)
Datoer (9517 st)
Lande (5315 st)
Idiom (4439 st)
Lengde
Topplistor (6 st)

Ordspråksmusik (20 st)
Statistik

Denna sidan visar ordspråk som liknar "This calls into question every time the government has relied on national security to impose secrecy. The only reason to gag our clients was to stifle their free speech rights in the debate over the Patriot Act. The government flip-flop confirms our suspicions.".