5 ms·

> What is happening currently shows that the right to free speech is not respected by the Spanish government. You might have missed the non-stop concentrations

by euyyn 9y ago

> What is happening currently shows that the right to free speech is not respected by the Spanish government. You might have missed the non-stop concentrations of people claiming for independence. Or if you think the app being banned from the Play Store is by a private individual developed using their own funds, you should know it's not the case.

thethirdone 9y ago
> You might have missed the non-stop concentrations of people claiming for independence. Are you saying that the Spanish have the right to free speech because they claim independence? Any person can do whatever is within their power (such as speak their mind or kill somebody); the right to free speech is the assurance that the Government won't interfere (as they should with murder). > Or if you think the app being banned from the Play Store is by a private individual developed using their own funds, you should know it's not the case. I am not sure what you are trying to insinuate with this.
- euyyn 9y ago
  I'm just speculating with what made you think this: > What is happening currently shows that the right to free speech is not respected by the Spanish government. because you didn't explain it. The Spanish have the assurance, from our Constitution, that the Government won't interfere with concentrations claiming independence, or whatever else. Thus, by your own definition (and mine) we have the right to free speech.
  - thethirdone 9y ago
    > The Spanish have the assurance, from our Constitution, that the Government won't interfere with concentrations claiming independence, or whatever else. Thus, by your own definition (and mine) we have the right to free speech. Which section(s) are you referring to? I couldn't find anything about interfering in concentrations claiming independence or free speech? I did find Section 71 stating that members of Congress have free speech in order to do their functions, but that implies normal people do not.
    - jaimebuelta 9y ago
      Title I, chapter 2, section 20 (page 16 in this pdf), in English: http://www.congreso.es/portal/page/portal/Congreso/Congreso/Hist_Normas/Norm/const_espa_texto_ingles_0.pdf http://www.congreso.es/portal/page/portal/Congreso/Congreso/... )
      - logicallee 9y ago
        Hi, I'm the poster that originally objected to the lack of first-amendment protection in Spain, and the nonchalance of the other poster with regard to this fact. I just read your link and I like it. I'd like to quote it so it's part of our thread here: >1. The following rights are recognised and protected: > a) the right to freely express and spread thoughts, ideas and opinions through words, in writing or by any other means of reproduction. > b) the right to literary, artistic, scientific and technical production and creation. > c) the right to academic freedom. > d) the right to freely communicate or receive truthful information by any means of dissemination whatsoever. I didn't quote points 2, 3, 4 and 5 immediately after, you can click on the PDF parent poster quoted they're on page 16 and page 17 there. They're about prior censorship, mass media, and a couple of exceptions concerning privacy, and how publications can be seized. The language I did quote, though, is very good. So the question is, why doesn't this apply to the case we're reading about? This is what we're reading about (quoted from our article): >The app, available on Google Play until just before 7 p.m. on Friday, helps people to find their polling station via their address and shows the closest polling stations on Google Maps via GPS, the name of the town or keywords. >It also allows users to share links to polling station locations. It's directly under point A "by any other means of reproduction" and it's under point b "technical production and creation" and point d "freely communicate any truthful information by any means of dissemination whatsoever." Is information about polling stations, distributed by app, truthful information disseminated by any means whatsoever? Clearly it is. So why doesn't what we just quoted have teeth? This goes directly to what I'm saying that although it might be written somewhere, the (excellent) language you referred to doesn't have the force that the first amendment does in the United States.
        euyyn 9y ago

by euyyn 9y ago

thethirdone 9y ago

> You might have missed the non-stop concentrations of people claiming for independence. Are you saying that the Spanish have the right to free speech because they claim independence? Any person can do whatever is within their power (such as speak their mind or kill somebody); the right to free speech is the assurance that the Government won't interfere (as they should with murder). > Or if you think the app being banned from the Play Store is by a private individual developed using their own funds, you should know it's not the case. I am not sure what you are trying to insinuate with this.

euyyn 9y ago
I'm just speculating with what made you think this: > What is happening currently shows that the right to free speech is not respected by the Spanish government. because you didn't explain it. The Spanish have the assurance, from our Constitution, that the Government won't interfere with concentrations claiming independence, or whatever else. Thus, by your own definition (and mine) we have the right to free speech.
- thethirdone 9y ago
  > The Spanish have the assurance, from our Constitution, that the Government won't interfere with concentrations claiming independence, or whatever else. Thus, by your own definition (and mine) we have the right to free speech. Which section(s) are you referring to? I couldn't find anything about interfering in concentrations claiming independence or free speech? I did find Section 71 stating that members of Congress have free speech in order to do their functions, but that implies normal people do not.
  - jaimebuelta 9y ago
    Title I, chapter 2, section 20 (page 16 in this pdf), in English: http://www.congreso.es/portal/page/portal/Congreso/Congreso/Hist_Normas/Norm/const_espa_texto_ingles_0.pdf http://www.congreso.es/portal/page/portal/Congreso/Congreso/... )
    - logicallee 9y ago
      Hi, I'm the poster that originally objected to the lack of first-amendment protection in Spain, and the nonchalance of the other poster with regard to this fact. I just read your link and I like it. I'd like to quote it so it's part of our thread here: >1. The following rights are recognised and protected: > a) the right to freely express and spread thoughts, ideas and opinions through words, in writing or by any other means of reproduction. > b) the right to literary, artistic, scientific and technical production and creation. > c) the right to academic freedom. > d) the right to freely communicate or receive truthful information by any means of dissemination whatsoever. I didn't quote points 2, 3, 4 and 5 immediately after, you can click on the PDF parent poster quoted they're on page 16 and page 17 there. They're about prior censorship, mass media, and a couple of exceptions concerning privacy, and how publications can be seized. The language I did quote, though, is very good. So the question is, why doesn't this apply to the case we're reading about? This is what we're reading about (quoted from our article): >The app, available on Google Play until just before 7 p.m. on Friday, helps people to find their polling station via their address and shows the closest polling stations on Google Maps via GPS, the name of the town or keywords. >It also allows users to share links to polling station locations. It's directly under point A "by any other means of reproduction" and it's under point b "technical production and creation" and point d "freely communicate any truthful information by any means of dissemination whatsoever." Is information about polling stations, distributed by app, truthful information disseminated by any means whatsoever? Clearly it is. So why doesn't what we just quoted have teeth? This goes directly to what I'm saying that although it might be written somewhere, the (excellent) language you referred to doesn't have the force that the first amendment does in the United States.
      - euyyn 9y ago