Reporters Without Borders: SPAIN: Free expression debate

[SealLion]

You'll have to excuse me for the incorrect title of this thread as the original title on the website was too long to fit in the subject header above.

The true title for this article is:

Court’s decision to convict cartoonists “reopens debate on free expression in Spain”

This article is dated.
It is from November, though I like to look around at different web sites and at times, I miss a few articles that I think may have been of interest had I seen them before.

Anyways...this article is about free speach and how at times it is muffled.

Reporters Without Borders condemns yesterday’s conviction of two cartoonists on charges of insulting the Spanish crown in a front-page cartoon in the weekly El Jueves last July that showed Crown Prince Felipe having sex with his wife, Princess Letizia. The court fined cartoonists Guillermo Torres and Mantel Fontdevilla 3,000 euros each

I guess some things are taboo, yes??

Politicians are not taboo and when a newspaper cartoonist or journalist makes a caricature of a politician, most people laugh.
In my own country, politicians occasionally get caught and participate in a TV comedy show that makes fun of them.
Most see it as a good joke and laugh it off.

OFF TOPIC FYI; The TV show is called 'This hour has 22 minutes." / OFF TOPIC

When a person makes a caricature of someone who's a crown member, it's a bit different, I guess.
Maybe it's b/c that crown member holds something akin to representation of head of state in that country and heaven forbid, be made a cartoon of.

For myself and my own opinion on this, the Queen of England is supposed to be my country's head of state, though I personally could care less for her.

And as such it's also a matter of free speech. As it should be. :

“The conviction of these two journalists by the national court reopens the debate about free expression in Spain,”

do you think that some laws are out-dated:

(The) National court....found Torres and Fontdevilla guilty under article 491.1 of the criminal code, which punishes “insulting the king or any of his ancestors or descendants.”

Is it to protect the crown member if something should go wrong or they do something wrong??
That is, too silence any critique of them.

Suppose the crown member of state did something illegal, was caught and everyone was shocked to learn so.
Someone published some news of this in the paper and was jailed for it b/c it went against the King's character or something like that.
Then what??
Should laws like this be considered antiquated and taken out of the law books??

Torres and Fontdevilla said they did not understand the verdict. Their lawyer, Jordi Plana, said they intended to appeal and, if necessary, would take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

I don't personnally believe that this is an issue of human rights as it would more so be a matter of a charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Free speech is not a human right, but more so a matter of an issue of a country's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Would you not agree??

still, they might lose such a case as someone could argue this issue based on Charter of rights' and freedoms vs. Human rights.

Here's the link:

Reporters Sans Frontières - Court’s decision to convict cartoonists “reopens debate on free expression in Spain”

[slikrapid]

I guess some things are taboo, yes??

When a person makes a caricature of someone who's a crown member, it's a bit different, I guess.
Maybe it's b/c that crown member holds something akin to representation of head of state in that country and heaven forbid, be made a cartoon of.

its quite simple, in a democracy they are (or rather should be) equal to any other citizen, regardless of one's title or position - they may have some special abilities that go with the function, but concerning basic rights there should be no difference

naturally all is great & dandy in the democratic world until cases like this one arise (or when we get to feel it on our own skin), when we can glimpse the actual reality of the system where a select few have higher status than others, even when it concerns the basic rights/freedoms/liberties, which leads to a conclusion that something is not quite right with the system and that it needs some maintenance & changes to return it to a state its supposed to have (from public's point of view)

For myself and my own opinion on this, the Queen of England is supposed to be my country's head of state, though I personally could care less for her.

you are not alone, it seems this person is the head of quite a few states other than her original one, which can be traced back to the british colonial empire when afaik it was ruling over about 3/4 of the known world

Is it to protect the crown member if something should go wrong or they do something wrong?? That is, too silence any critique of them.

if you look at things from their point of view (you can probably include most of the aristocracy too), they consider themselves as better (or entitled to more) than the ordinary citizen - its explained by their royal heritage ie. they inherited a higher status and their function is to rule over the people (similar to religious leaders that claim their higher status given to them by various gods) - one may think of this as a relic from ancient times, but nevertheless they believe in it and the system is designed to protect them and keep their leading roles (even if they or their actions/roles are not visible through current governments & parliaments) - another example is that no matter what they do, none of them will get serious punishments or jail time

I don't personnally believe that this is an issue of human rights as it would more so be a matter of a charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Free speech is not a human right, but more so a matter of an issue of a country's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

actually, it is a human right:

The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR recognizes the right to freedom of speech as "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression".[1][2] Furthermore freedom of speech is recognized in European, inter-American and African regional human rights law.

but there's a catch as always, since every country defines it slightly different and adds a few exceptions to it, so one can never be sure how much liberty there is without skilled legal backup or knowledge on the subject

[SealLion]

well, I stand corrected on the Human rights issue as per freedom of speech.
actually, I didn't even know that.

and theoretically, aristocratic person's are equal in freedom's and privileges...well, perhaps they have a few extra fine dining privileges, yes??
They get to have yummy morsels of escargots.

But that's being said on theoretical grounds. In practical grounds, we both know that isn't the case and most likely never will.

The aristocracy are destined to rule and no one should interfere in the daily grind of their high strung privileges and elevated status cuz if they do they'll just get spanked on the bottom, go to jail, get fined 10, ooo, ooo million dollars of which their family, their descendants and who knows who else born in their lineage will have to pay through the nose for the rest of their ill-gotten lives, yes??

Things won't change. Not unless you have another French Revolution somewhere to throw these snobs out of the king's chair.

Do aristocracy get parking tickets??
....er.... Nope.
Never mind that someone else drives their car for them. Hell, they can park any where they please. Even if it means parking illegally.

As for freedom of speach issues.
YOur reminded to watch your manners.
It's the aristocracy we're talk'in 'bout here, you know.
It;ll be damn embarrassing to them.
You just can't say anything you want 'bout them.
They're ABOVE the law.
J'ist you remember that, now.


Well, it'll be interesting to see such a case go through. No doubt, the legal team representing the aristocratic party will have pretty much things on their sides.
Will the judge be on their side??
That's probably a completely different story as I'd hate to see a news report of a judge that got bought.
But it's the European Court of Human Rights.

Perhaps it might be different. Perhaps not.

N0-one is immune to corruption.
We've seen it both in news reports from Wikileaks and other reportage on corruption being evident pretty much everywhere.
Money does talk, you know.

And if it isn't money that does the talking, there'll be something else in the way to ensure that REAL justice gets blocked.

Should royalty be allowed to impede or influence any legal proceedings whether it involves them or not??.....Nope.

But as it is, it 'will.
Like I said, maybe there needs to be another french revolution somewhere.
A change in constitution would be best.

Australia has been battling that issue of royalty being that country's head of state for quite some time.
In my country. well,....let's just say things don't change.

The ties to England and the Queen who reigns supreme are wanted to remain.

Even though the flow of immigrants to this country are from areas where the Queen does not reign. Do new immigrants from Asia and such have any affiliation to the Queen??..Nope.
Should they??....nope.
My God!!!!.....it's almost 2010 and we're still having aristocracy rule.

But we know that some of the aristocracy are part of the elite, the oligarchy, and the NWO.
So things won't change at all.