"It's really too bad, b/c this is the start of another unravelling of European democracy and freedom."

democracy is an abomination and freedom is a illusion. maybe europeans are ahead of the curve on this.

concentration camps could solve alot of problems in america. the obesity epidemic, our large inmate population, our high murder rate, ect.

> TheYell wrote:

> I agree actually, that Phoenix sheriff cuts way down on his redicivism rate at the Tent City jail he built.  He has them outside in 50C weather, drinking cold coffee and eating baloney sandwiches and wearing pink underwear

Yell, it's actually an extension to his actual jail, and participating is optional. But it would be cool if that actually was the jail.

ET

you need to inform yourself of the whole case rather than going for the textual equivalent of a soundbite. The article in question was a pretty scathing document on the activities of mining companies in Congo in general. The magazine was acquitted for writing this. They were only condmned for a minute aspect of their publication that was held to be seperate from the article as such, namely a cartoon that was published on the cover of the magazine of a man called Forrest, who is a very influential person in the Congo.

Regardless of what you may think about the condemnation of the cartoon, you cannot claim that this is censorship. That's idiotic since it is only censorship if the publication had been halted prior to publication.

As for the freedom of expression aspect. The reasoning behind it is actually very american - litteral. The article of the constitution was drafted with writers in mind and not cartoonists, so there was an acquital on the part of the writing but not on the part of the imaging.

The magazine was convicted because the judges felt the drawing was slanderous to mr. Forrest as a private person and therefor gave him a moral compensation of 1 euro. I would say that the judgement is incorrect since mr. Forrest actually is one of the people engaged in those fishy mining company activities and therefor the cartoon is not exactly inaccurate, but the legal reasoning behind it is sound and I'm willing to bet a similar reasoning (slandering private persons is not allowed) could be upheld in US courts if the facts actually meritted it.

edit: esa ironically that is exactly how the article is interpreted, the article in question doesn't apply to eg radio or television, but this is a constitutional protection that has always been drafted for printed material, there are other protections so this does not exactly put everyone else in a legal void when it comes to expressing opinions

Is this censorship or just a libel case?

Just a case of protecting someone's security.

In some small community down south, a group of people broke into someone's house and beat him to death because in the pub they'd heard he was a paedophile. Likewise, the USA bombed a middle-eastern country because some government comic book said dragons, advanced WMDs and evil genies lived there... you gotta oppose free speech sometimes in order to protect more fundamental rights

East,

i appreciate your response. first off, touche, i don't the specifics, i was going off a soundbite. it was, however, the third or fourth such case of a cartoonist being censored in europe within the past few months, and right on topic with all the anislamophiliaphobia that has been going on.

last i heard, censorship can happen before or after the publication, for if they arrest him after his first cartoon, that is "before" any subsequent cartoons he would have written.

it is rather...obnoxious?...to turn a blind eye to common sense and realize the writers of the constitution couldn't realize all the future ways people would express themselves, from cartoons to blogs...and misapply the spirit of the law. pharisaical, not literal. america is guilty of this too at times.

this wasn't the strongest breach, the other ones were much more palpable hits.

i wonder what the reaction would be if new york times made a cartoon of george bush depicted as a pedophile?

strictly speaking the act of censorship is to examine and remove material prior to its publication, ie to prevent the circulation - that is also how it is used in that article of the belgian constitution, but I suppose in common day language it can also be used more broadly as supressing information

no that's more like $1.50!! so he made out better by suing in Europe!

not the way your economy is going t'other way round I expect