OT: For all the genocidal dictators...

[Fyron]

In the US, lawyers in general are paid absurd amounts of money.

[Growltigga]

Fyron, you are right.

The statistics are that 85% of the world's lawyers are in the United States.

The pay differential is scary. I was speaking to an American lawyer of equivalent grade to me a couple of weeks back. We talked salaries and I choked when he told me that his pay was 8 times what mine was, and that he got a bonus.

Who do we think is paying for all this?

It is scary

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Growltigga:
Ooh, I think you need to get off your anti-lawyer kick.. lawyers are not overpaid compared to other professionals (eg accountants, actuaries and venture capitalists particularily)...

But it's so FUN to kick lawyers.

You do know that that is all in jest, no? I would not be so simple minded as to think all lawyers everywhere are overpaid and not worthy of respect. Well, they aren't all overpaid anyway...

Puke, it sounds like you have enough problems of your own... the point I want to make here Geo is that I showed your post on our sports behaviour to 2 germans, 1 belgian and 3 english colleagues... it really was better than laughing gas.. to accuse us of jingoism and patriotric fervour in our sports is an absolute classic, do the words "pot", "kettle" and "black" mean anything to you.

Gt, please do try to keep your comments at least a little bit to the point of the discussion. You keep going off on these tangents where noone else has gone and it makes it terribly inconvient to try and keep things moving along. If you didn't have such a prejudice against all things American you would realize that my comments were in no way directed at British, Belgians or Germans. YOU commented that linedancers showed a lack of intelligence by the actions they partook in persuit of their hobby, and i was merely pointing out that soccer fans show many of the same lacks of mental prowess. Not British soccer fans, just soccer fans in general. I could have said the same thing about American Football fans, except for the part about beating the crap out of each other. For that matter, booing is one thing, but how many people got beat up in Salt Lake City for carrying the wrong flag? I didn't hear about it if it happened at all.

The fact that you don't seem to get is that I am not anti-British. I never even brought up any comments about American fredom of speech being better than European Freedom of Speech. You were the one that opened that particular box unfortunatly. In my mind you either have freedom of speech either or you don't have freedom of speech. It's a human condition, it's not about countries.

Freedom of Speech is constitutionalised in the US, rather than legislated as it is in most european countries.

So you think this means you can say what you like about what you like when you like.

Fine, try it. You try and take your soap box to the middle of your town today and preach on something like kiddy porn. You think you will be free to do so?

WRONG. You will be arrested. Try looking at the US public order offences and see what they really say.

You really don't get it do you? We can in fact do that exact thing and will not be arrested. You may have to get a permit or something. The Klu Klux Klan does that very thing several times a year all over the country. And As Baron pointed out,. the perverts at NAMBLA even have their own organisation and everything. It's all protected by law.

Many people think the permits are a tool used by the government to restrict the freedom of speech, and so say they are wrong. That I am sure has happened from time to time, but actually they are there to protect the person wanting to speak those things which are unpopular. It allows the local municipality to prepare for the speech and call in more police protection so the inevitable crowd doesn't turn into a mob and take away the person right to free speech, along with their head.

Where do you get your incorrect ideas about the US? I guess the European press must protray America as some sort of facist police state. I guess if a few shameful incidents get all the TV coverage that is what you would think. I can tell you I live in America, and that's not the way it is.

But even if you don't file a permit and go down town and start preaching on some unpopular topic, you may get arrested, but it WON'T be for the words that you speak Gt. It will be for causing a disturbance. In fact you may not get arrested at all. The cop may simply glare at you and tell you to move along. If you refuse he'll take you away and throw you in jail. The fact is if the cop wasn't there you might get killed, and then he'd have to fill out more paperwork, and cops hate paperwork.

You might spend a night or two and get a fine for public disturbance. But there are no prisons in the US for people that say the wrong things. Hell, there aren't even enough for the real criminals. You will be back on the street in no time.

As a lawyer you must know the difference between constitutionalising something and legalising it. But I'll explain it for the room.

If something is legalised, the government is saying, we have the right to take this away from you if we choose, but we are not going to do that. We will let you do it, for now at least.

Constitutionalising something says, I the government do not have the right to take this right away from you. As long as we are bound by this document I cannot do so. We could as a people ammend the constitution and give the govenrment the right to restrict our freedom of speech if we wanted to, but it would be really stupid to do so.

Geoschmo

[ July 16, 2002, 13:17: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Growltigga]

Well, they aren't all overpaid anyway...

Geo, if you wish to criticise lawyers, I should ask you to ensure you qualify your remarks by reference to stating that you are remarking on US attorneys, and not lawyers or advocates around the globe

Geo, what do you do for a living?

[/quote]Gt, please do try to keep your comments at least a little bit to the point of the discussion. You keep going off on these tangents where noone else has gone

Oh dear, Geo, the whole point of an argument or a debate is that is comprises two mutually contradicting viewpoints that (hopefully) reaches some form of consensus through logical discussion. I am not going off on a tangent, I am simply responding or giving examples to the left-field remarks you have made.

I am also not prejudiced against all things American (I even own a Hammecher Schlammer cat rehydrator). I am slightly prejudiced against the national perception/world view Americans have a tendency to project to the rest of humble mortals lucky enough to share the planet with Americans but generally, I like Americans fine.

Your comments WERE directed at soccer fans and as such, are bound to be emotive to those of us who profess to enjoy soccer. My comments on linedancers I will admit are pure self-opinion.

Yes, booing is one thing, it is poor sportsmanship, and I would point out that having Asked Jeeves/google searched and checked, no-one can remember anyone ever being beaten up in any form of mass riot/fight at a Winter Olympics for carrying wrong flags or otherwise - what point are you trying to make by what appears to be a flawed comparator

In my mind you either have freedom of speech either or you don't have freedom of speech. It's a human condition, it's not about countries.

Again, your point is flawed, freedom of speech can be said to be a human condition but we are talking about how it can be manifested, and that is governed by national legal systems

I get it completely unfortunately. Racism in the US is not illegal. It is not illegal in 99% of Western democracies and the Klu Klux Klan, as the British National Party or the German Neo-Nazis factions are fully entitled to demonstrate and do what they want to profess a hatred for other races. What they cannot do is incite. Of course, any recourse to violence will be slammed down under provbably every jurisictional system.
Back to our example of public policy issues such as kiddy porn, try and get a permit for tholding a debating forum or rally for that and find out if you will get it. You wont. Therefor, you are saying that your right to exercise freedom of speech is being repressed and that constitutionally, you have a right to this. Try again.

Where do you get your incorrect ideas about the US? I guess the European press must protray America as some sort of facist police state. I guess if a few shameful incidents get all the TV coverage that is what you would think. I can tell you I live in America, and that's not the way it is.

My views come from personel experience. I have live in the US for over 2 years on and off. You legal system is less permissive than you think and is far more akin to the european systems than you may notice. As to your constitutional rights, all I will say on this that you try and get these enforced if they were breached,

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Growltigga:
Geo, if you wish to criticize lawyers, I should ask you to ensure you qualify your remarks by reference to stating that you are remarking on US attorneys, and not lawyers or advocates around the globe

I will do no such thing. Disdain for those in the legal profession is not an American opinion exclusively. But I will tone it down. My Last comment was a parting shot. I will stow my cannon.

Geo, what do you do for a living?

I am a computer geek. I am sure you will have no trouble finding much ammunition to use against me in that regards. Most of it deserved I am sure.

Oh dear, Geo, the whole point of an argument or a debate is that is comprises two mutually contradicting viewpoints that (hopefully) reaches some form of consensus through logical discussion. I am not going off on a tangent, I am simply responding or giving examples to the left-field remarks you have made.

But you can't do that, because that is what I was doing. You hit the ball, I was merely attempting to get it back to the keeper before you got safely across the crease.

I am also not prejudiced against all things American (I even own a Hammecher Schlammer cat rehydrator). I am slightly prejudiced against the national perception/world view Americans have a tendency to project to the rest of humble mortals lucky enough to share the planet with Americans but generally, I like Americans fine.

As well you should be. I too am prejudiced against that perception which too many of my countrymen hold. I will thank you to not lump me in with them.

Your comments WERE directed at soccer fans and as such, are bound to be emotive to those of us who profess to enjoy soccer. My comments on linedancers I will admit are pure self-opinion.

My comments were not only bound to be emotive, they were intended to be so. But they were not directed at your nationality, any more than your comments against linedancers were directed at all Americans. However, your misguided reaction proved my point better than I could hope to, and I thank you for it.

Yes, booing is one thing, it is poor sportsmanship, and I would point out that having Asked Jeeves/google searched and checked, no-one can remember anyone ever being beaten up in any form of mass riot/fight at a Winter Olympics for carrying wrong flags or otherwise - what point are you trying to make by what appears to be a flawed comparator

The flaw was in your understanding of my original point, not in my comparator. I compared the raucous behavior of soccer fans to the ridiculous shenanigans of linedancers as equally comparable demonstrations of their lack intellectual prowess. You misinterpreted this as a denigration of your fair country, and attempted to drag the Olympics of late hosted in my fair country into the discussion for some unclear (too me) reason. I was merely pointing out that even if we were to discuss the argument on your fallacious terms, your argument would be found wanting as the behavior of the excessivly patriotic Americans in Salt Lake was admittedly rude, but it was by no account physically abusive.

Again, your point is flawed, freedom of speech can be said to be a human condition but we are talking about how it can be manifested, and that is governed by national legal systems

This is a true enough statement, although a bit simplistic. Mine was a poor choice of words. When I said a "human condition", my meaning was that the freedom is an indisputable fact. Freedom of speech I should have said is not a condition, but is an ultimate truth. It is a goal to attain. Whether or not you agree it can be, or even should be attained is a point of debate. You can argue that one does not have an inalianble right to freedom of speech. I can argue one does, and that any government that attempts to restrict this right is unnatural. Debating that point does not change the nature of the goal itself. You cannot redefine the truth of it for if you attempt to, you render it worthless.

I get it completely unfortunately. Racism in the US is not illegal. It is not illegal in 99% of Western democracies and the Klu Klux Klan, as the British National Party or the German Neo-Nazis factions are fully entitled to demonstrate and do what they want to profess a hatred for other races. What they cannot do is incite. Of course, any recourse to violence will be slammed down under provbably every jurisictional system.
Back to our example of public policy issues such as kiddy porn, try and get a permit for tholding a debating forum or rally for that and find out if you will get it. You wont. Therefor, you are saying that your right to exercise freedom of speech is being repressed and that constitutionally, you have a right to this. Try again.

And here lies the root of your own misdirection of the debate. For the original discussion was not about kiddie porn, or even about ones right to stand on a busy street corner and defame the cherished sensibilities of a polite society. The discussion was about whether the right to maintain an objectionable website is maintained under freedom of speech. All your subsequent arguments have been taking us away from that central point, not towards it. The website in question does not seek to incite. Read it and you will see. Or don't and stay ignorant. That is your right as well.

My views come from personel experience. I have live in the US for over 2 years on and off. You legal system is less permissive than you think and is far more akin to the european systems than you may notice. As to your constitutional rights, all I will say on this that you try and get these enforced if they were breached,

I stand by my statements. Yes, you may in fact be arrested for standing up on a corner and preaching hate or espousing the virtues of kiddie porn, if a crowd forms to listen to you. But you also will be arrested for standing on the same corner and quoting loudly from the bible, or reading the constitution of the United States. Anything that draws a crowd will become an inconvienence or a hazard to daily passage will draw the notice of the local constabulary, and get you a polite suggestion to "Move along buddy." If you refuse this, they will no doubt arrest you, but not for what you say. You will be arrested for causing a disturbance. There is a HUGE difference.

[Growltigga]

I am a computer geek. I am sure you will have no trouble finding much ammunition to use against me in that regards. Most of it deserved I am sure.

I am actually sure that I do have significant ammunition against computer nerds (which is a bit of a surprise). I recall you mentioned you have children, so I am assuming you have been near to a female at some point in your life (or at least once). I suppose the computer nerd profession is such that it really is too boring to even make jokes about...

But you can't do that, because that is what I was doing. You hit the ball, I was merely attempting to get it back to the keeper before you got safely across the crease.

Er no, other way round I think. YOu need to reconsider who was keeping who on target [PS was your sporting analogy baseball?]

I will thank you to not lump me in with them.

I will be delighted not to lump you in with your fellow rednecks. I am also delighted to see at least one American who can rise above it.

My comments were not only bound to be emotive, they were intended to be so.

Yes, your comments were emotive but it is obvious that the mens rea behind your remarks was to make your point AGAINST the English in particular. You are aware that I recently spent a considerably amount of money watching my team play in the World Cup in Japan, and it is obvious that on this basis, you were trying to (I beleive the American phrase is) "score a point".

Given the profound fallaciousness of your remark, of course it is only a naturla reaction for us europeans to frankly lose bladder control.

Whether or not you agree it can be, or even should be attained is a point of debate. You can argue that one does not have an inalianble right to freedom of speech. I can argue one does, and that any government that attempts to restrict this right is unnatural. Debating that point does not change the nature of the goal itself.

Now, this is one of the first things you have said that actually makes sense [ducking under desk]. I do believe however that this whole debate started in analysing whether or not the United States has true Freedom of Speech and whatever you wish to tell me otherwise, we are back to this proposition.

You can stand by your statements and that is your right. I however, have had this debate dozens of times with Americans and it is interesting that the people who primarily do not believe you have true freedom of speech in the US are your attorneys. I find that interesting.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Growltigga:
I am actually sure that I do have significant ammunition against computer nerds (which is a bit of a surprise). I recall you mentioned you have children, so I am assuming you have been near to a female at some point in your life (or at least once). I suppose the computer nerd profession is such that it really is too boring to even make jokes about...

ROFL! I'll have you know sir that I am considered something of a "stud" among my fellow computer nerds having been with two women in my lifetime.

Er no, other way round I think. YOu need to reconsider who was keeping who on target [PS was your sporting analogy baseball?]

No, this was a pathetically inept attempt at putting into cricket terms so that you would understand. I recently had occasion to catch a game, or match or whatever you call it on ESPN 8 between the Pakistani and Dominican Republic teams. It was quite interesting and has caused me to seek out additional information on the sport. If you have any direction in that regard I would appreciate it.

Yes, your comments were emotive but it is obvious that the mens rea behind your remarks was to make your point AGAINST the English in particular. You are aware that I recently spent a considerably amount of money watching my team play in the World Cup in Japan, and it is obvious that on this basis, you were trying to (I beleive the American phrase is) "score a point".

Given the profound fallaciousness of your remark, of course it is only a naturla reaction for us europeans to frankly lose bladder control.

Ah, but here you are off the mark. My comments were not aimed at English, or Europeans in particular, only at you as a football fan. The reference to body paint in your national colors was only by point of comparison. I was no more saying that all English do this than you were saying all Americans are linedancers. I could have just as easily compared linedancers to the ridiculous American Football fans that dress up in their teams regalia, but that would not given weight to my point that idiotic behavior is not limited to linedancers per se, because as both Groups are primarily made up of Americans they could in fact be the same people. And at any rate it would not have gotten a sufficient reaction out of you, which I have already admitted was at least part of the objective.

An example of a snide comment directed at persons of a specific nationality would be something like pointing out that europeans lack of bladder control is something which is beyond my means to affect. Please note that I do not make this comment except for the purposes of demonstrating the difference to you.

I do believe however that this whole debate started in analysing whether or not the United States has true Freedom of Speech and whatever you wish to tell me otherwise, we are back to this proposition.

That is in fact where you have attempted to take the debate. But the debate in fact began as a discussion of whether or not the particular offending website should be protected under the right of Freedom of Speech. You have chosen rather than to speak to this point to try and redefine whether we as Americans in fact have this right that the majority of us hold as self-evident.

You can stand by your statements and that is your right. I however, have had this debate dozens of times with Americans and it is interesting that the people who primarily do not believe you have true freedom of speech in the US are your attorneys. I find that interesting.

This I cannot speak to other than to point out that making any sort of assumption based on your discussions would be a hasty generalization, which is another logical fallacy. One would have to assume that either you have spoken to every American attorney, or that the opinions they expressed were actually their opinions and not simply polite conversation aimed at not causing you distress, or that their opinion is somehow representative of the opinion of all lawyers in the US. And even assuming those things, it is not uncommon for one that is in a certain field and well versed with it's negative aspects to become jaded to it.

[ July 16, 2002, 20:17: Message edited by: geoschmo ]