Re: Linux? What's that? My own survey.
- From: Jamie Hart <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:29:12 +0000
John Bailo <jabailo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:9YadnT_kvpAsH4vZnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:
Jamie Hart wrote:
You have openly stated that the UK does not have freedom of speach,
despite me pointing you to proof that it does.
http://books.google.com/books?id=bFBJoEOXMW4C&dq=freedom+of+speech+in+g
reat+britain&oi=print&pg=PR87&sig=ec7zOm_4tekb5ovXOWG8mZYXz_M&prev=http
://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dfree
dom%2Bof%2Bspeech%2Bin%2Bgreat%2Bbritain%26spell%3D1
"The privilege which was not established during the period under
review, is that one which an antocratic sovereign could not afford to
recognize, namely, the privilege of freedom of speech."
Hang on a minute, I prove freedom of speech exists by showing that it was
written into the bill of rights in 1689 and you counter by providing a
reference that it didn't exist During the Reign of Elizabeth or James I?
Fair enough, but maybe I should point out that Elizabeth Reigned from
1558 until 1603, James the first reigned from 1603 until 1625 (64 years
before Free Speech was written into the bill of rights).
So the two situations are not in conflict. Before 1689, freedom of
speach did not exist in the UK, after 1689 it did.
Isn't history wonderful.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Mac Uncracked and Unhacked after 38 Hours--Challenge
- Next by Date: Re: Is George Graves rattled?
- Previous by thread: You can't teach an old Mac new tricks
- Next by thread: Does any software like this exist for OSX?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
