http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518450,00.html
Bizzare!
-
]-3Fs-[Spec_Ops_G
- Posts: 62
- Joined: 19-02-2009 01:55
-
swen
- Site Admin
- Posts: 282
- Joined: 28-11-2008 16:03
[quote="GOKU"]sounds like swens driving lesson didnt go to well[/quote]
not so funny a bit of respect of this tragedy is in place
5 ppl died and alot of injurys
on a national day ( queensday )
[img]http://www.geenstijl.nl/archives/images/ANP-9693485.jpg[/img]
just a kid who got hit i believe 7, it could be yourse paul
[img]http://www.geenstijl.nl/archives/images/ANP-9693484.jpg[/img]
another shot
this is the man who did it :\ in the back you see the royal family
[img]http://multimedia.ekstrabladet.dk/eb/ar ... 32540m.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.geenstijl.nl/archives/images/Nieuwe477.jpg[/img]
the car who went tru the crowd of ppl who where enjoying queensday
not so funny a bit of respect of this tragedy is in place
5 ppl died and alot of injurys
on a national day ( queensday )
[img]http://www.geenstijl.nl/archives/images/ANP-9693485.jpg[/img]
just a kid who got hit i believe 7, it could be yourse paul
[img]http://www.geenstijl.nl/archives/images/ANP-9693484.jpg[/img]
another shot
this is the man who did it :\ in the back you see the royal family
[img]http://multimedia.ekstrabladet.dk/eb/ar ... 32540m.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.geenstijl.nl/archives/images/Nieuwe477.jpg[/img]
the car who went tru the crowd of ppl who where enjoying queensday
-
]-3Fs-[Spec_Ops_G
- Posts: 62
- Joined: 19-02-2009 01:55
[quote="GOKU"]what ever happened to freedom of speech[/quote]
Denmark
See also: Censorship in Denmark
Freedom of speech in Denmark is granted by Grundloven:[16]
§ 77 Any person shall be at liberty to publish his ideas in print, in writing, and in speech, subject to his being held responsible in a court of law. Censorship and other preventive measures shall never again be introduced.
Traditionally the left-wing parties support freedom of speech but not when such speech is anti-minority and or is blasphemous. Right-wing parties alternately support full freedom of speech for the citizens almost regardless of motive and subject (racism in public is illegal so it has not been included in the statement). In the wake of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, however, there has been considerable debate over the extent of free-speech protections in Denmark, as concerns speech and imagery that could be seen as blasphemous or insulting.
The Netherlands
De Schreeuw (The Scream) is a memorial commemorating Theo van Gogh and a symbol of the freedom of speech.
Article 7 of the Dutch Grondwet in its first paragraph grants everybody the right to make public ideas and feelings by printing them without prior censorship, but not exonerating the author from his liabilities under the law. The second paragraph says that radio and television will be regulated by law but that there will be no prior censorship dealing with the content of broadcasts. The third paragraph grants a similar freedom of speech as in the first for other means of making ideas and feelings public but allowing censorship for reasons of decency when the public that has access may be younger than sixteen years of age. The fourth and last paragraph exempts commercial advertising from the freedoms granted in the first three paragraphs.[17]
The penal code has laws however sanctioning certain types of expression. Such laws and freedom of speech are at the centre of a public debate in The Netherlands after the arrest on May 16, 2008 of cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot. Jurisprudence from the 60's prohibits prosecution of blasphemy. Parliament has recently expressed its wish to abolish the law penalizing blasphemy. The current Christian Democrat Justice Minister would however prefer to renew it and expand it to include non-religious philosophies of life, thus making it possible to anticipate and prevent international outcry similar to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Laws that punish discriminatory speech also exist and are being used against Gregorius Nekschot. Laws on lèse majesté exist and are occasionally used to prosecute.
United Kingdom
See also: Censorship in the United Kingdom
In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. UK law imposes a number of limitations on freedom of speech not found in some other jurisdictions. For example, its laws recognise the crimes of incitement to racial hatred and incitement to religious hatred. UK laws on defamation are also considered{{by whom?}} among the strictest in the Western world, imposing a high burden of proof on the defendant.
In 1988, UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher imposed a ban on the broadcasting of Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams' voice. The ban lasted from November 1988 to 16 September 1994, and denied the UK news media the right to broadcast the voices, though not the words, of all Irish republican and unionist paramilitaries. To allow the continuation of news reporting on the subject, during a time when 'The Troubles' in Northern Ireland were a matter of great importance and interest, the BBC used actors to speak Adams' words. The net effect of the ban was to increase publicity. [23]
UK defamation law may have recently experienced a considerable liberalising effect as a result of the ruling in Jameel v Wall Street Journal in October 2006. A ruling of the House of Lords - the highest UK court - revived the so-called Reynolds Defence, in which journalism undertaken in the public interest shall enjoy a complete defence against a libel suit. Conditions for the defence include the right of reply for potential claimants, and that the balance of the piece was fair in view of what the writer knew at the time.
The ruling removed the awkward - and hitherto binding - conditions of being able to describe the publisher as being under a duty to publish the material and the public as having a definite interest in receiving it. The original House of Lords judgment in Reynolds was unclear and held 3-2; whereas Jameel was unanimous and resounding.
Lord Hoffman's words, in particular, for how the judge at first instance had applied Reynolds so narrowly, were very harsh. Hoffman LJ made seven references to Eady J, none of them favorable. He twice described his thinking as unrealistic and compared his language to “the jargon of the old Soviet Union.”
U.S. Constitution: First Amendment
First Amendment - Religion and Expression
Amendment Text | Annotations
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Denmark
See also: Censorship in Denmark
Freedom of speech in Denmark is granted by Grundloven:[16]
§ 77 Any person shall be at liberty to publish his ideas in print, in writing, and in speech, subject to his being held responsible in a court of law. Censorship and other preventive measures shall never again be introduced.
Traditionally the left-wing parties support freedom of speech but not when such speech is anti-minority and or is blasphemous. Right-wing parties alternately support full freedom of speech for the citizens almost regardless of motive and subject (racism in public is illegal so it has not been included in the statement). In the wake of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, however, there has been considerable debate over the extent of free-speech protections in Denmark, as concerns speech and imagery that could be seen as blasphemous or insulting.
The Netherlands
De Schreeuw (The Scream) is a memorial commemorating Theo van Gogh and a symbol of the freedom of speech.
Article 7 of the Dutch Grondwet in its first paragraph grants everybody the right to make public ideas and feelings by printing them without prior censorship, but not exonerating the author from his liabilities under the law. The second paragraph says that radio and television will be regulated by law but that there will be no prior censorship dealing with the content of broadcasts. The third paragraph grants a similar freedom of speech as in the first for other means of making ideas and feelings public but allowing censorship for reasons of decency when the public that has access may be younger than sixteen years of age. The fourth and last paragraph exempts commercial advertising from the freedoms granted in the first three paragraphs.[17]
The penal code has laws however sanctioning certain types of expression. Such laws and freedom of speech are at the centre of a public debate in The Netherlands after the arrest on May 16, 2008 of cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot. Jurisprudence from the 60's prohibits prosecution of blasphemy. Parliament has recently expressed its wish to abolish the law penalizing blasphemy. The current Christian Democrat Justice Minister would however prefer to renew it and expand it to include non-religious philosophies of life, thus making it possible to anticipate and prevent international outcry similar to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Laws that punish discriminatory speech also exist and are being used against Gregorius Nekschot. Laws on lèse majesté exist and are occasionally used to prosecute.
United Kingdom
See also: Censorship in the United Kingdom
In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. UK law imposes a number of limitations on freedom of speech not found in some other jurisdictions. For example, its laws recognise the crimes of incitement to racial hatred and incitement to religious hatred. UK laws on defamation are also considered{{by whom?}} among the strictest in the Western world, imposing a high burden of proof on the defendant.
In 1988, UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher imposed a ban on the broadcasting of Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams' voice. The ban lasted from November 1988 to 16 September 1994, and denied the UK news media the right to broadcast the voices, though not the words, of all Irish republican and unionist paramilitaries. To allow the continuation of news reporting on the subject, during a time when 'The Troubles' in Northern Ireland were a matter of great importance and interest, the BBC used actors to speak Adams' words. The net effect of the ban was to increase publicity. [23]
UK defamation law may have recently experienced a considerable liberalising effect as a result of the ruling in Jameel v Wall Street Journal in October 2006. A ruling of the House of Lords - the highest UK court - revived the so-called Reynolds Defence, in which journalism undertaken in the public interest shall enjoy a complete defence against a libel suit. Conditions for the defence include the right of reply for potential claimants, and that the balance of the piece was fair in view of what the writer knew at the time.
The ruling removed the awkward - and hitherto binding - conditions of being able to describe the publisher as being under a duty to publish the material and the public as having a definite interest in receiving it. The original House of Lords judgment in Reynolds was unclear and held 3-2; whereas Jameel was unanimous and resounding.
Lord Hoffman's words, in particular, for how the judge at first instance had applied Reynolds so narrowly, were very harsh. Hoffman LJ made seven references to Eady J, none of them favorable. He twice described his thinking as unrealistic and compared his language to “the jargon of the old Soviet Union.”
U.S. Constitution: First Amendment
First Amendment - Religion and Expression
Amendment Text | Annotations
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-
Flying-Dutch
- Posts: 65
- Joined: 20-02-2009 11:11
[quote="sandman"]Id like to know why the two guys in uniforms are just standing there??[/quote]
Because the car drove right true the crowd with a speed close to 93.21 mph (150 kmh). I think there is not much you can do. The guy you see in the uniform on the photo is a member of the royal dutch marechaussee (military unit i also was part of). They are the dutch MP's and they were on honorguardduty, at least the guy in the picture is. i also wondered why he did not do a thing but this photo is taken while the car just slammed into the public so it must have been at his topspeed or just right after hitting his topspeed. On the other end, what could he do Lee? Shoot at the car risken more casuallties in the crowd by bullets that could bounce of the car?
The netherlands are in complete shock. The guy killed 5 people and tonight he also died due to his injuries gained from the crash. He did mention to policeofficers that got him out of the wreckagge that he ment to attack the royal dutch family. The guy is a complete nutcase....
My thoughts are with the 3 children age 9, 15 and 16 that were badly injured during the attack and also with the other victims and there families.
R.I.P.
ps: paul, I think swen was just emotional when he reacted. the royal dutch family is well loved here in Holland. How would you feel if someone would say that to you after the death of Diana? Nevertheless he knows its just a joke...
respect,
Rob.
Because the car drove right true the crowd with a speed close to 93.21 mph (150 kmh). I think there is not much you can do. The guy you see in the uniform on the photo is a member of the royal dutch marechaussee (military unit i also was part of). They are the dutch MP's and they were on honorguardduty, at least the guy in the picture is. i also wondered why he did not do a thing but this photo is taken while the car just slammed into the public so it must have been at his topspeed or just right after hitting his topspeed. On the other end, what could he do Lee? Shoot at the car risken more casuallties in the crowd by bullets that could bounce of the car?
The netherlands are in complete shock. The guy killed 5 people and tonight he also died due to his injuries gained from the crash. He did mention to policeofficers that got him out of the wreckagge that he ment to attack the royal dutch family. The guy is a complete nutcase....
My thoughts are with the 3 children age 9, 15 and 16 that were badly injured during the attack and also with the other victims and there families.
R.I.P.
ps: paul, I think swen was just emotional when he reacted. the royal dutch family is well loved here in Holland. How would you feel if someone would say that to you after the death of Diana? Nevertheless he knows its just a joke...
respect,
Rob.
As a finishing touch, God created the Dutch!
[img]http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc33 ... 239457.jpg[/img][img]http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc33 ... rlands.gif[/img][img]http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc33 ... 239457.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc33 ... 239457.jpg[/img][img]http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc33 ... rlands.gif[/img][img]http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc33 ... 239457.jpg[/img]
-
Flying-Dutch
- Posts: 65
- Joined: 20-02-2009 11:11
Well. I could laugh about your remark, and I did 
But I can understand where the remark from swen came from that's all i want to say about that.. don't want to get in the middle of things!
respect,
rob.
But I can understand where the remark from swen came from that's all i want to say about that.. don't want to get in the middle of things!respect,
rob.
As a finishing touch, God created the Dutch!
[img]http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc33 ... 239457.jpg[/img][img]http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc33 ... rlands.gif[/img][img]http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc33 ... 239457.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc33 ... 239457.jpg[/img][img]http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc33 ... rlands.gif[/img][img]http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc33 ... 239457.jpg[/img]
-
]-3Fs-[Spec_Ops_G
- Posts: 62
- Joined: 19-02-2009 01:55
Thanks Paul 
