What are the limits of free speech? (1 Viewer)

[aoboa]

did i miss a meeting? are we worshipping zeus again or something?

Ask Jack Bauer about it

 

[Ciansy]

I suppose if you can get away with killing someone in self defence, you could say that person's right to life was inabsolute? Is inabsolute even word?

Yes indeed, and no I made it up.

 

[therealjohnny]

The first time ever that a decision was made by a person, group or administrative body to sacrifice even one person's life for the perceived greater good of others, and that decision was supported by a majority of those affected, the right to life became inabsolute.

see if you were trapped on a desert island and you realised that one of your party was a werewolf- then I think it'd be pretty wise to kill that guy

good point ciansy

i like your werewolf analogy

 

[egg_]

it isn't? how come?

Self-defence
(as rsj said)

 

[Mormon Nailer]

it isn't? how come?

Someone is entitled in certain circumstances to kill in self defense.

The state is also entitled to kill under certain circumstances.

 

[therealjohnny]

The state is also entitled to kill under certain circumstances.

oh dear god no

 

[oh shit]

Someone is entitled in certain circumstances to kill in self defense.

The state is also entitled to kill under certain circumstances.

killing in self-defence is actually the crime of manslaughter, or accidental death. there is no right to kill in self-defence that is prescribed in the law. i'd love to see someone attempt to legally define when it is ok.

the same thing applies to agents of the state, thank god

the right to life is absolute

edit: in a state of war this is altered and humanitarian conventions apply, however there is still no right to kill per se

 

[snakybus]

the right to life is absolute

I presume you mean human life.

When does life begin?

 

[Ciansy]

see if you were trapped on a desert island and you realised that one of your party was a werewolf- then I think it'd be pretty wise to kill that guy

good point ciansy

i like your werewolf analogy

Well, somebody had to say it.

Isn't war legal in certain circumstances? Any state with an army is pretty much acknowledging that the right to life isn't absolute, somebody is going to be killed if you have an army.

 

[SONYMEGADRIVE]

 

[lympog]

are we worshipping zeus again or something?

you're referring to me, right??? because i've been told i'm god-like

- leigh

 

[MDR]

When does life begin?

At 40.

 

[oh shit]

I presume you mean human life.

When does life begin?

birth

sorry, i'm speaking in abstract terms
no Council of Europe state can derogate from, or qualify, the right to life
but the right to life is not in itself guaranteeing that people won't be killed

behold, for the UK and Ireland anyway:

[FONT=Arial,Bold]

European Convention on Human Rights

Article 2 . Right to life
​

[/FONT]

1 Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be
deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a
court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided
by law.

2 Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of
this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than
absolutely necessary:

a in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

b in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person
lawfully detained;

c in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or
insurrection.​

 

[Diddles]

I presume you mean human life.

When does life begin?

Oh Jesus! See you in fifteen pages!

 

[Mormon Nailer]

killing in self-defence is actually the crime of manslaughter, or accidental death. there is no right to kill in self-defence that is prescribed in the law. i'd love to see someone attempt to legally define when it is ok.

the same thing applies to agents of the state, thank god

the right to life is absolute

edit: in a state of war this is altered and humanitarian conventions apply, however there is still no right to kill per se

Manslaughter is killing which is without premeditation nothing to do with whether it is in self defence or not. You do have a right to kill in self defence provided your actions are proportionate to the threat to yourself.

The state has the same right to kill in self defense. For example a state could rightly choose to execute someone for sedition where, if the person were left alive the state would be unstbilised to such an extent the safety of the population as a whole would be threatened.

the state also has a right to kill in defence of its citizens - for example to prevent a terrorist attack.

 

[Ciansy]

birth

sorry, i'm speaking in abstract terms
no Council of Europe state can derogate from, or qualify, the right to life
but the right to life is not in itself guaranteeing that people won't be killed

behold, for the UK and Ireland anyway:

This seems like pure semantics to me.

"You can't derogate from or qualify the right to life, because we've qualified it for you already."

 

[RSJ]

Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of
this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than
absolutely necessary:

a in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

b in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person
lawfully detained;

c in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or
insurrection.

Wow, talk about semantics!

 

[Mormon Nailer]

i'd love to see someone attempt to legally define when it is ok.

This do you?

The defence of self-defence is one which can be and will be readily understood by any jury. It is a straightforward conception. It involves no abstruse legal thought. ...Only common sense is needed for its understanding. It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but may only do, what is reasonably necessary. But everything will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances. ...It may in some cases be only sensible and clearly possible to take some simple avoiding action. Some attacks may be serious and dangerous. Others may not be. If there is some relatively minor attack it would not be common sense to permit some action of retaliation which was wholly out of proportion to the necessities of the situation. If an attack is serious so that it puts someone in immediate peril then immediate defensive action may be necessary. If the moment is one of crisis for someone in imminent danger he may have [to] avert the danger by some instant reaction. If the attack is all over and no sort of peril remains then the employment of force may be by way of revenge or punishment or by way of paying off an old score or may be pure aggression. There may no longer be any link with a necessity of defence... If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken.

 

[snakybus]

Oh Jesus! See you in fifteen pages!

I revel in ambiguity.

 

[Ciansy]

I revel in ambiguity.

That's disgusting. Does your mother know?