Humanities desk | ||
---|---|---|
< October 31 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 2 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Boldly moved from Village pump (policy) since this seems like the right place for it. zchrykng ( talk) 03:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The law of defamation is seen as a "slippery slope" topic within the freedom-ist point of view, because it severely restricts the public's right of free speech in the area of what individuals in the general public can say about individuals in the "private" public. But putting that aside, this question deals with what treaties have direct influence on defamation law.
More to the point, what secrecy protocols are in place which affect such treaties, such that public law has aspects which are affected by the secrecy protocols attached to treaties? And in particular, what secrecy aggreements exist between the United States and Britain exist that restrict American free speech and have an influence on Wikipedia at the policy level? - Inowen ( nlfte) 23:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The protections to free speech provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States, cannot be overridden by any law or treaty. Defamation is on the short-list of types of speech not entitled to first amendment protection, but the standards by which a statement would be declared defamatory in a US court do not change because a treaty is involved. The US does not have any Lèse-majesté laws shielding foreign heads of state from disparagement, as for example Germany did until earlier this year. In fact, it is even more difficult to prove defamation against a head of state than against an ordinary citizen, as the Sullivan standard must be met, though in fact such persons tend to have much better lawyers, so this could be easier in a way. Someguy1221 ( talk) 04:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
For those still confused by this,
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Removal of talk page comments is particularly illustrative e.g. "is meaningful when its Queen can veto the popular Brexit vote without explanation or account to the people of England
" and "it's certainly the case if the Queen of England has meddling in Wikipedia we should know about it
". Also
Talk:Restoration (England)#Introductione and
Talk:Brexit#Internal politics and
Talk:Brexit#Overview section and
Talk:Anglicanism#Controversies and
Talk:Socialism#Meanings of socialism. Don't worry, it isn't just monarchy/aristocracy
Talk:Surveillance/Archive 1#Telly "before IPoverPower/PowerOverIP was disclosed it was developed and used to monitor regular TVs.
"
To Inowen, other than what I said above, please read WP:NOTFREESPEECH and the linked Wikipedia:Free speech. Maybe you're going to dismiss this since I'm from NZ, although I'm actually a republican and am free to say that I think the British monarchy should bugger off without fear of persecution, but I'll say again this has nothing to do with defamation or US-UK treaties or US-NZ treaties or any crap like that. I don't, as with many wikipedians, give a flying flip what the queen wants nor other members of the aristocracy and am definitely not under instruction to censor you. However editing wikipedia is ultimately about building an encyclopaedia, and we do that with reliable sources, not with the theories of random editors. Feel free to start your own website where you can ramble to your hearts content on the evils of the aristocracy and how the UK isn't a democracy etc. I would suggest you don't draw more attention to yourself since you've probably already well earned a WP:NOTHERE block.
The UK instead believes in the loyalism to the monarch and the perpetuation of its monarchy, not the freedom of the individual, and not in the idea 'that every person on Earth have free access to the sum of all knowledge.'" What utter horse shit. Are you going to try and troll all non-American parts of the world, or just the UK. After spouting off elsewhere that the UK isn't democratic, we now don't believe in freedom of the individual and therefore free access to knowledge? I've seen some idiotic logic in my time, but yours is probably the worst I've come across. You are either trolling, or just too dumb to realise just how wrong you are, and I don't know (or care) which it is. WP:NOT HERE and WP:DNFTT are probably best applied here. - SchroCat ( talk) 21:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
All I am saying is there is systemic bias coming from the anti-democratic government of Britain, and that its routes need to be investigated. Using "Her Majesty's government" in article text is only one of them. - Inowen ( nlfte) 23:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@ SchroCat: A couple of those indices you list are ranking monarchies with the label "full democracy." There's got to be something wrong there. Two of the indices you list are British, one of them is Austrian. The one by the UN ranks "development" and not "democracy." The UN is well-known for being hacked by the UK, particularly the Security Council. Naturally the CIA follows along, but not with serious data. So your point is that there are reliable sources which say that your country which is a monarchy is also a "full democracy?" How can this be? How can a nation state with a hereditary (unelected) leader who has absolute state immunity be called a "full democracy?" Your personal attacks are out of line.- Inowen ( nlfte) 02:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
If one is a Catholic, how often is one required by the Church to go to confession? FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 01:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
In 1828, Andrew Jackson did extremely well in the Deep South, winning every county in which a vote was held, except for a few Georgia counties that voted for someone named Clarke. However, Adams won several Louisiana parishes, including several with more than 80% support if I'm reading the map rightly. Although Louisiana had just 8,687 popular votes among all candidates, versus 46,966 in the other Deep South states, Adams won almost as many popular votes in Louisiana (4,082) as in the others put together (4,371). Why did he have so much support in Louisiana? Also, who was Clarke? There's a Clarke County, Georgia, but the namesake Elijah Clarke died in 1799, and his article doesn't mention any relatives who used the same spelling. United States presidential election in Georgia, 1828 doesn't mention Clarke; United States presidential election in Louisiana, 1828 doesn't discuss Adams' comparative success; and there's nothing in the election's main article. Nyttend ( talk) 23:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
As to Clarke, I strongly suspect, but do not have proof, that this was John Clark (Georgia governor). His article says his name was sometimes spelled Clarke and that he lived in Milledgeville, which is in Baldwin County, Georgia; and, from the map, the county that voted most heavily for "Clarke" seems to have been Wilkinson, which is adjacent to Baldwin, though Baldwin itself voted for Jackson. The thing is that according to multiple sources I found in Google Books, John Clark and his rival George Troup both nominated slates of electors to vote for Jackson in 1828 (with different running mates for VP). If Clark was that active in the election then it doesn't seem surprising that he got some electoral votes himself. -- 76.69.46.228 ( talk) 08:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nyttend. In The Birth of Modern Politics: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and the Election of 1828, pp148-149, the author suggests “Among the French-speaking element in New Orleans there was still resentment against Jackson’s high-handedness in 1815, his treatment of his critics, and his suspension of habeas corpus even after it was known that the war was over.”…there’s more, but that is presented as the core reason for Louisiana leaning Adams. See Battle of New Orleans. 70.67.193.176 ( talk) 15:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Humanities desk | ||
---|---|---|
< October 31 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 2 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Boldly moved from Village pump (policy) since this seems like the right place for it. zchrykng ( talk) 03:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The law of defamation is seen as a "slippery slope" topic within the freedom-ist point of view, because it severely restricts the public's right of free speech in the area of what individuals in the general public can say about individuals in the "private" public. But putting that aside, this question deals with what treaties have direct influence on defamation law.
More to the point, what secrecy protocols are in place which affect such treaties, such that public law has aspects which are affected by the secrecy protocols attached to treaties? And in particular, what secrecy aggreements exist between the United States and Britain exist that restrict American free speech and have an influence on Wikipedia at the policy level? - Inowen ( nlfte) 23:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The protections to free speech provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States, cannot be overridden by any law or treaty. Defamation is on the short-list of types of speech not entitled to first amendment protection, but the standards by which a statement would be declared defamatory in a US court do not change because a treaty is involved. The US does not have any Lèse-majesté laws shielding foreign heads of state from disparagement, as for example Germany did until earlier this year. In fact, it is even more difficult to prove defamation against a head of state than against an ordinary citizen, as the Sullivan standard must be met, though in fact such persons tend to have much better lawyers, so this could be easier in a way. Someguy1221 ( talk) 04:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
For those still confused by this,
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Removal of talk page comments is particularly illustrative e.g. "is meaningful when its Queen can veto the popular Brexit vote without explanation or account to the people of England
" and "it's certainly the case if the Queen of England has meddling in Wikipedia we should know about it
". Also
Talk:Restoration (England)#Introductione and
Talk:Brexit#Internal politics and
Talk:Brexit#Overview section and
Talk:Anglicanism#Controversies and
Talk:Socialism#Meanings of socialism. Don't worry, it isn't just monarchy/aristocracy
Talk:Surveillance/Archive 1#Telly "before IPoverPower/PowerOverIP was disclosed it was developed and used to monitor regular TVs.
"
To Inowen, other than what I said above, please read WP:NOTFREESPEECH and the linked Wikipedia:Free speech. Maybe you're going to dismiss this since I'm from NZ, although I'm actually a republican and am free to say that I think the British monarchy should bugger off without fear of persecution, but I'll say again this has nothing to do with defamation or US-UK treaties or US-NZ treaties or any crap like that. I don't, as with many wikipedians, give a flying flip what the queen wants nor other members of the aristocracy and am definitely not under instruction to censor you. However editing wikipedia is ultimately about building an encyclopaedia, and we do that with reliable sources, not with the theories of random editors. Feel free to start your own website where you can ramble to your hearts content on the evils of the aristocracy and how the UK isn't a democracy etc. I would suggest you don't draw more attention to yourself since you've probably already well earned a WP:NOTHERE block.
The UK instead believes in the loyalism to the monarch and the perpetuation of its monarchy, not the freedom of the individual, and not in the idea 'that every person on Earth have free access to the sum of all knowledge.'" What utter horse shit. Are you going to try and troll all non-American parts of the world, or just the UK. After spouting off elsewhere that the UK isn't democratic, we now don't believe in freedom of the individual and therefore free access to knowledge? I've seen some idiotic logic in my time, but yours is probably the worst I've come across. You are either trolling, or just too dumb to realise just how wrong you are, and I don't know (or care) which it is. WP:NOT HERE and WP:DNFTT are probably best applied here. - SchroCat ( talk) 21:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
All I am saying is there is systemic bias coming from the anti-democratic government of Britain, and that its routes need to be investigated. Using "Her Majesty's government" in article text is only one of them. - Inowen ( nlfte) 23:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@ SchroCat: A couple of those indices you list are ranking monarchies with the label "full democracy." There's got to be something wrong there. Two of the indices you list are British, one of them is Austrian. The one by the UN ranks "development" and not "democracy." The UN is well-known for being hacked by the UK, particularly the Security Council. Naturally the CIA follows along, but not with serious data. So your point is that there are reliable sources which say that your country which is a monarchy is also a "full democracy?" How can this be? How can a nation state with a hereditary (unelected) leader who has absolute state immunity be called a "full democracy?" Your personal attacks are out of line.- Inowen ( nlfte) 02:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
If one is a Catholic, how often is one required by the Church to go to confession? FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 01:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
In 1828, Andrew Jackson did extremely well in the Deep South, winning every county in which a vote was held, except for a few Georgia counties that voted for someone named Clarke. However, Adams won several Louisiana parishes, including several with more than 80% support if I'm reading the map rightly. Although Louisiana had just 8,687 popular votes among all candidates, versus 46,966 in the other Deep South states, Adams won almost as many popular votes in Louisiana (4,082) as in the others put together (4,371). Why did he have so much support in Louisiana? Also, who was Clarke? There's a Clarke County, Georgia, but the namesake Elijah Clarke died in 1799, and his article doesn't mention any relatives who used the same spelling. United States presidential election in Georgia, 1828 doesn't mention Clarke; United States presidential election in Louisiana, 1828 doesn't discuss Adams' comparative success; and there's nothing in the election's main article. Nyttend ( talk) 23:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
As to Clarke, I strongly suspect, but do not have proof, that this was John Clark (Georgia governor). His article says his name was sometimes spelled Clarke and that he lived in Milledgeville, which is in Baldwin County, Georgia; and, from the map, the county that voted most heavily for "Clarke" seems to have been Wilkinson, which is adjacent to Baldwin, though Baldwin itself voted for Jackson. The thing is that according to multiple sources I found in Google Books, John Clark and his rival George Troup both nominated slates of electors to vote for Jackson in 1828 (with different running mates for VP). If Clark was that active in the election then it doesn't seem surprising that he got some electoral votes himself. -- 76.69.46.228 ( talk) 08:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nyttend. In The Birth of Modern Politics: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and the Election of 1828, pp148-149, the author suggests “Among the French-speaking element in New Orleans there was still resentment against Jackson’s high-handedness in 1815, his treatment of his critics, and his suspension of habeas corpus even after it was known that the war was over.”…there’s more, but that is presented as the core reason for Louisiana leaning Adams. See Battle of New Orleans. 70.67.193.176 ( talk) 15:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)