Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and
reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law
against such interference or attacks.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

(No wonder the Israelis hate the United Nations!)

Peter,

What happens when Art. 19 conflicts with Art.12?

Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Peter,
>
> What happens when Art. 19 conflicts with Art.12?
>
> Jon

Article 12 takes precedence. That is perhaps why it is placed ahead
of article 19. It is the same as the limitations upon freedom of
speech - that it does not, for example, include the right to falsely
cry "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Nor does it include the right to
commit libel or to ruin another person's livelihood with malicious
slander.

Peter,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...> wrote:
> Article 12 takes precedence.

I see nothing in the article that indicates the ordering of articles is indicative of weight or importance.

> That is perhaps why it is placed ahead of article 19.

Perhaps?

I note the following:

"Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

...the destruction of *any* of the rights... I think the crux of the issue is that when opinions are expressed, people view them differently. It is clearly not as easy as the "fire in a crowded room" example. Finally, I note Art. 1 (and especially note it if one wants to take these in precedence):

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

I'd say Art. 1 has been in paltry supply around here in recent days, something even I'm guilty of.

Jon

Some of the worse fighting is between brothers! at least in their youth, possibly this interaction is to develop each others strength, only latter do they become allies and/or start bands together

Jon Szanto wrote:

>
>
> "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
>
> I'd say Art. 1 has been in paltry supply around here in recent days, something even I'm guilty of.
>
> Jon
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> Some of the worse fighting is between brothers! at least in their youth, possibly this interaction is to develop each others strength, only latter do they become allies and/or start bands together

Certainly worth considering, Kraig. Maybe the term "brotherhood" is used to describe the mature state, when early conflicts and struggles have yielded their answers and the brothers can look to each other equally.

Cheers,
Jon

i am sure you are right but now i feel better about brotherhood

Jon Szanto wrote:

>
>
> Certainly worth considering, Kraig. Maybe the term "brotherhood" is used to describe the mature state, when early conflicts and struggles have yielded their answers and the brothers can look to each other equally.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

"Peter Wakefield Sault" quoted two articles of the UDofHR. He
neglected to quote the most relevant article:

"
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
"

Mr. Sault is free to write whatever he likes, but we are free to
decide not to keep his company. In deciding to keep his company or
not, we have the right to read or hear whatever we find about Mr.
Sault, and it is our right to ask whatever are questions relevant to
our decision to associate with him or not. He has the right not to
answer, but he should not expect that a lack of response to such
questions will be understood to be a neutral response.

In Hungary, freedom of assembly is a great even sacred right. From
history, I know that one neighbor may be a former (socialist) state
security agent and another may be a former arrow-cross (hungarian
nationalist) party member. Their opinions are their own and I will
even defend their rights to have them. But if I don't like their
opinions, I don't have to listen to them, and I don't have to be a
member of any group that has them for members.

The questions that Paul and Dante and Kalle asked, based on
statements attributed to Mr. Sault found on public webpages, were
reasonable questions to ask, to decide whether to stay in a group, or
to determine if the group is a peaceful one. And they were questions
well within their rights to free speech. Mr. Sault's answer, was not
to answer ambiguously or with silence and then to threat lawsuit, and
to seek the banning of the questioners. Any reasonable court would
dismiss such a suit, or may be even invite a counter-suit (see the
recent case of David Irving). And such banning attempts are not less
than censorship. (But this is typical today: extremists of all sorts
demand their right to free speech but at the sametime seek to stop
anyone else from speaking).

Gabor Bernath

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning"
<alternativetuning@a...> wrote:
> "Peter Wakefield Sault" quoted two articles of the UDofHR. He
> neglected to quote the most relevant article:
>
> "
> Article 20.
> (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
> association.
>
> (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
> "
>
> Mr. Sault is free to write whatever he likes, but we are free to
> decide not to keep his company. In deciding to keep his company or
> not, we have the right to read or hear whatever we find about Mr.
> Sault, and it is our right to ask whatever are questions relevant
to
> our decision to associate with him or not. He has the right not to
> answer, but he should not expect that a lack of response to such
> questions will be understood to be a neutral response.
>
> In Hungary, freedom of assembly is a great even sacred right. From
> history, I know that one neighbor may be a former (socialist) state
> security agent and another may be a former arrow-cross (hungarian
> nationalist) party member. Their opinions are their own and I will
> even defend their rights to have them. But if I don't like their
> opinions, I don't have to listen to them, and I don't have to be a
> member of any group that has them for members.
>
> The questions that Paul and Dante and Kalle asked, based on
> statements attributed to Mr. Sault found on public webpages, were
> reasonable questions to ask, to decide whether to stay in a group,
or
> to determine if the group is a peaceful one. And they were
questions
> well within their rights to free speech. Mr. Sault's answer, was
not
> to answer ambiguously or with silence and then to threat lawsuit,
and
> to seek the banning of the questioners. Any reasonable court would
> dismiss such a suit, or may be even invite a counter-suit (see the
> recent case of David Irving). And such banning attempts are not
less
> than censorship. (But this is typical today: extremists of all
sorts
> demand their right to free speech but at the sametime seek to stop
> anyone else from speaking).
>
> Gabor Bernath

So what are your feelings about Israeli terrorism, Gabor?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning"
<alternativetuning@a...> wrote:
> "Peter Wakefield Sault" quoted two articles of the UDofHR. He
> neglected to quote the most relevant article:
>
> "
> Article 20.
> (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
> association.
>
> (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
> "
>
> Mr. Sault is free to write whatever he likes, but we are free to
> decide not to keep his company. In deciding to keep his company or
> not, we have the right to read or hear whatever we find about Mr.
> Sault, and it is our right to ask whatever are questions relevant
to
> our decision to associate with him or not. He has the right not to
> answer, but he should not expect that a lack of response to such
> questions will be understood to be a neutral response.
>
> In Hungary, freedom of assembly is a great even sacred right. From
> history, I know that one neighbor may be a former (socialist) state
> security agent and another may be a former arrow-cross (hungarian
> nationalist) party member. Their opinions are their own and I will
> even defend their rights to have them. But if I don't like their
> opinions, I don't have to listen to them, and I don't have to be a
> member of any group that has them for members.
>
> The questions that Paul and Dante and Kalle asked, based on
> statements attributed to Mr. Sault found on public webpages, were
> reasonable questions to ask, to decide whether to stay in a group,
or
> to determine if the group is a peaceful one. And they were
questions
> well within their rights to free speech. Mr. Sault's answer, was
not
> to answer ambiguously or with silence and then to threat lawsuit,
and
> to seek the banning of the questioners. Any reasonable court would
> dismiss such a suit, or may be even invite a counter-suit (see the
> recent case of David Irving). And such banning attempts are not
less
> than censorship. (But this is typical today: extremists of all
sorts
> demand their right to free speech but at the sametime seek to stop
> anyone else from speaking).
>
> Gabor Bernath

Since you guys started your concerted campaign of lies about me, the
Adelaide Institute has received a threatening e-mail from a Jewish
terrorist organization, trying to silence it and/or remove it from
the Internet. So much for your self-righteous, hypocritical, blather.
Do you approve of Israeli terrorism?