The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
127

As with many such rights, you should look to pre-modern Europe to understand the context in which such rights were introduced. At that time, without forensic evidence, the best chance of a conviction was a confession, and easiest way to get a confession would be to mistreat a prisoner. There was no police force so magistrates and judges would be greatly ...


79

This is a common misconception. Freedom of speech does not mean that everybody can say whatever they want, whenever they want and wherever they want. It means essentially that people cannot be legally punished for expressing their opinions, except if said opinions infringe on other freedoms. This means that people are allowed to express their opinions, but ...


67

There are actually several points that make it different: The European charter of fundamental rights states in its very first article that human dignity is inviolable. (Just like the German Basic Law btw.) This automatically forbids any action of the state taking the life of any human being as a form of sanction. Also people on death row usually wait for ...


63

I can answer this from the US angles, which largely mirrors the European thinking. Stats from this Wikipedia entry The justice system sometimes fails. There are people unwilling to accept a system that could execute an innocent person. 157 people sentenced to death in the US have been exonerated since 1973. Death penalty cases largely mirror life sentences ...


40

Are prisoners considered as slaves? Prisoners are held in prison due to their breaches of laws, prisoners remain in prison for specific terms, prisoners cannot be traded, prisoners have rights (including to safety and to not be overworked), the offspring of prisoners (even if they are born when their parents are at prison) are not prisoners. No. Prisoners ...


32

Up front: Holocaust Denial is not limited under U.S. law. There is an adequate list on Wikipedia of free speech exceptions, that for convenience I will replicate here: Communicative impact restrictions (e.g. incitement, elicitation) False statements of fact (e.g. libel, slander, perjury) Obscenity (very tightly interpreted, and only regulated in public) ...


32

There is evidence that enforcement of this bill may result in some legislation of pronoun use. C-16 specifically and intentionally does not declare definitions of gender pronouns or identity. The Canadian Department of Justice website states that the Bill will not define the key terms itself, and instead will be based on the existing definitions and ...


30

Abortion is legal until the end of the 24th week. Not in Northern Ireland. UK progressiveness really ought to remember to look at the whole UK. I would say that the big areas at the moment are: Preventing a regression of rights, especially in relation to Brexit; this might include employment rights, and definitely includes the rights of the 3m EU ...


28

There is no factual basis for the claim that incorrect pronoun use will lead to negative consequences. The bill does two things: It adds gender identity or expression as protected classes under the Canadian Human Rights Act It adds gender identity or expression as protected classes to the criminal code, specifically to a section about hate propaganda and ...


27

Being arrested can be extremely stressful, especially if you are innocent since you might fear being prosecuted for something you didn't do in addition to being caught off guard. After the arrest comes the detention, where you are isolated from the outside world and have eventually to deal with cops - and other people in detention. These conditions are even ...


23

Sedition, the technical legal term for what you're talking about, is prohibited by section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This dates all the way back to the colonial era, and was originally used to suppress people pushing for India's independence from Britain. The Supreme Court of India ruled in 1962 that section 124A was constitutional, but that ...


23

Consider where your line of thought will lead: You own or have rented a house or apartment, I presume. Would it be censorship if you stop me from painting political slogans on your bedroom wall? Or would it simply be you exercising your right to determine how your bedroom is to be used? Say you invite a couple of friends for a party. Would it be censorship ...


22

The united states has never really been supportive of international law treaties. The main reason is many of them violate rights granted to citizens and are fairly major breaches of sovereignty. Most prominently is the refusal to recognize the International Criminal Court. The international Court of Justice is slightly different, in that it is partially ...


21

Assuming your question is to be interpreted as "show me examples", what happened more recently that's reasonably relevant to a scenario like you propose was Wukan, in which local anti-corruption and to a certain extent pro-[local]-democracy activists were eventually suppressed: During the 2011 protests, Zhuang helped barricade the coastal hamlet of 15,000 ...


19

Generally, words like "extremism" are pejorative and there really is no substance. However, there are some general categories of definitions in political science. I had the fortune to meet Dr. Haider-Markel while at the University of Kansas. This section is taken from my notes for a graduate course in political extremism and terrorism he taught in 2011. ...


19

The confusion here is the use of the word alienable, which means non-transferable, not unrestrictable. For Jefferson, as with most of the Founding Fathers, rights were grounded in Natural Law, hence the wording "We hold these truths to be self-evident...." In other words, human rights were a function of "humanness," and not transferred to them, or bestowed ...


18

Well right off the bat, let me say that the signs are legally irrelevant. Restaurants that do or do not have the signs have the same rights, regardless of whether they telegraph that to their costumers. As an analogy, homes without "No Trespassing" signs have just as much right to call the cops on trespassers. The main purpose of the signs is not to reserve ...


18

Who supplies Saudi-Arabia with weapons? As you can read on the Wikipedia article on the Royal Saudi Air Force and Saudi-Arabian ground forces, Saudi Arabia has the following aircraft capable of performing ground strikes: 154 McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle's (United States) 64 Eurofighter Typhoon's (Germany/UK/Italy/Spain joint venture) 80 Panavia ...


18

Access to legal aid, which is currently going backwards. While pjc50's answer is great, almost all of them will end up in court and without access to legal aid, anyone without significant reserves faces a severe disadvantage in the modern legal arena. Even an MP who originally supported and voted for the cuts has changed his mind. Neill, a barrister, has ...


13

In the United States currently any crime can and will turn a person into a slave if they are sent into confinement. Virtually every large prison and halfway house in the country has "work" programs that constitute slavery. In many cases prisoners are not paid at all, other times they are paid some trivial amount like 5 cents per hour. Either way it is ...


13

I see your point but this has its origins in how the penal code is conceived in the European history of law. Basically from Hegel onwards, the law has been thought of not as something that is supposed to extract revenge on the criminal, because at its base you can not undo a crime that has been done. The function of the law, especially the penal code, is ...


13

An innocent person can't benefit from talking to the police. The person concerned might accidentally say something false. Or he might say something that is true but is contradicted by a witness and the police may interpret this as lying. So an innocent person can be convicted as a result of talking to the police. In addition, in almost every country there ...


13

Go to the actual text of the Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same ...


13

The actual wording of the Fifth Admendment is No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ... Once a person has been granted immunity, that person's testimony cannot be used against him or her, and so compelling testimony does not violate this right. A person asserting this right ("Pleading the Fifth") must ...


13

In 1989, a large number of Chinese citizens did exactly this on Tiananmen Square. The reaction by the Chinese govenment was to declare martial law and order the army to attack the protesters with lethal force. The military complied and killed several hundred to several thousand protesters (estimations differ a lot depending on source). Now this was 30 ...


12

In the United States, treaty ratification is done in Congress, specifically in the Senate. The Constitution gives the President unique powers in foreign policy (it is his primary Constitutional portfolio) and the President is responsible for meeting with and negotiating the terms of any treaty the United States wishes to enter into independently (without ...


12

I think anyone reading the laws the bill modifies could reasonably come to that conclusion. According to the text of the Canadian Human Rights Act: It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly... in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee, on a prohibited ground of discrimination. and: It is a ...


12

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right of any person to express themselves. It is one of the human rights defined by the UN charter, and it is a right expressed in most democratic constitutions, separately. To take the latter first - governments that guarantee freedom of speech defines it as a right to not get arrested, fined, censored or otherwise ...


11

No As a general rule, libertarianism is opposed to changes imposed by majority rule over the objections of a minority. The more likely solution in this case would be for the nine homeowners to buy out the tenth. Note that it is also possible that the ten homeowners could have previously entered into a contractual relationship where the tenth homeowner ...


11

Ok, Trump apparently did criticize North Korea's human rights record, last November, in front of South Korea’s National Assembly. I couldn't find his speech right away, but I found a summary: When President Trump spoke to South Korea’s National Assembly last week, his emphasis on the systematic abuses and absence of basic freedoms in the authoritarian ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible