Interestingly, the DHS's lawyers argued in court that Harry's admissions of drug use in his memoir are exaggerations and not the truth. I don't know how the DHS can have the certainty to make that claim, but if it was true, it would have other implications for Harry, as his memoir was marketed as being truthful. The DHS is claiming, diplomatically, that the book is full of lies.
So if we get to see the documents at any point in the near future after the DHS has been ordered to hand them over, they are going to show either that Harry admitted to drug use in the form, in which case: a) the DHS's lawyers were lying in court, and b) Harry was given special treatment to enter the US. Or, the documents are going to show that Harry did not admit to using them on the form, in which case, either a) Harry lied on the form, or b) Harry lied in his "truthful" book about drug use. However, I think there is a lot of circumstantial evidence from other sources that Harry has used drugs apart from just what he confessed to in his biography (I was going to write autobiography, until I remembered that it was ghostwritten by J. R. Moehringer).
I don't agree with that sort of activism, but jail time seems harsh ( to me ) — not to mention actually martyring her via incarceration. A criminal record, coupled with restitution garnished out of her pay, community service time, and government pension for the value of the artwork, would probably make more of an impression.That's horrible crime.
She/he should get not less then 5 years in prison for that. Absolutely unimaginable to vandalise precious national heritage like that. I think Boris Johnson passed some new laws to deal exactly with this kind of behaviour. This should not be punished just with fine, but with proper prison term. That person is nothing more but a criminal and terrorist. The whole point of democracy is dialogue, not violence and attacks on property.
We can not change our history, neither we should, but we must preserve it so we can learn lessons from it.
What is next? Toppling down Nelson's monument in Trafalgar square?
Jail time is justified in this case, at least to me, as time is more valuable to me than money...Fines and garnishments will enable others to do similar acts of destruction...IMOjail time seems harsh ( to me )
Plus, a lot of these extreme left-wing activist organizations have secret wealthy backers who can provide the money to pay off fines.Jail time is justified in this case, at least to me, as time is more valuable to me than money...Fines and garnishments will enable others to do similar acts of destruction...IMO
...
what did ISIS do in Iraq? Destroy ancient structures and artifacts ................
Jail time wastes taxpayer money while providing the activist with a badge of honor. However, picking-up trash by the side of the highway for the next 7 years and making her actually pay for the damage, would at least be compensation — and keep her too busy to bother with more destructive activism ( IMO ).Jail time is justified in this case, at least to me, as time is more valuable to me than money...Fines and garnishments will enable others to do similar acts of destruction...IMO
Well, that's a slippery slope.
I have lost track of the mass shootings because there have been so damned many but know that on at least a few there were blatant red flags on social media and had anyone been made aware lives could have been saved. I'd say the police being involved with this means that no one else is doing anything about it. Pity the only control the media can exert is political in nature.
No I didn't but I understand what you are saying.I think you may have missed the point of the article. If it has anything to do with mass shootings at all, that's just a smoke screen. Other laws cover outright threats of violence and similar offenses — this broadens "hate" speech" to include pretty much anything that isn't politically correct, goes against the mainstream narrative, or offends the woke.
It's outrageous, and they're trying to clamp it down here in Canada and other places ( like France ) as well. It's another tactic in the globalist authoritarian attack on individual freedoms.
No I didn't but I understand what you are saying.
I am saying that there are times when censorship may be appropriate, especially in extreme cases involving public safety. I am also saying that if the police are doing it - something highly suspect IMO considering political weaponization - it means no one else is. That should include parents and the media sites themselves but often doesn't.
I am also asking: where do you draw the line ? When do you censor for the public good and don't you? Hence the slippery slope.
What this also means is that the liberal elites who said they were going to flee to Canada if trump were elected will find a Woke Paradise up there from the sounds of it.
When it comes to "public safety" I prefer to let the "public" decide for themselves what is and isn't "safe". It seems to me that whenever Governments decide to do it, it means civil liberties are going to get trampled on.
Indeed — I would add that what sets the USA apart from weaker democracies is that as you say — it's a republic. More specifically, it's a constitutional republic that includes protections for individuals, without which it would devolve into a tyranny of the majority.As a Republic, the United States government should be acting in accordance with what the public, their representatives, decides...However, as we know these days, thus is not the case, we have a rogue government that must be reined in and put back in place.