@hightor,
You bring up the same thing I'm concerned about - the erosion of democratic process. I'm not sure precisely how the US system works, but government here was founded on a Separation of Powers basis, and was supposed to be accountable to the people....and this has been eroded over time.
Separation of Powers meant that the Legislative Branch did not control the Executive Branch, and neither controlled the Judicial branch. The Legislative Branch has been eroding the independence of the Executive Branch for decades. And it looks like, according to what you wrote - is having more & more say in the Judicial Branch in the US.
Coupled with this, the Legislative Branch (ie. Politicians) have become more & more secretive, have shut down informed debate and have centralised 'PR' releases:
Things that have gone by the wayside here:
- Director Generals of Departments used to openly criticise the Legislative Branch if their policy would have adverse effects (this stopped when they introduced contracts for DG's). This is a big loss, because it kept the people properly informed of the issues - from professionals who worked their entire lives in the field
- Boots on the Ground professionals could comment on the cases they specialised in. This isn't as big a loss as the above, but it did give the people a laymans view of what was actually happening.
- Experts would willing participate in Senate Estimates Committees (but the Legislative Branch started attacking them under Parliamentry Privelege, or revoking grants if they were researches). Their willingness to participate dropped significantly over time...unless they supported the governments objectives.
- Parliamentary Question time, where specialised political reporters would ask questions of Ministers (and so ask insightful questions), was done away with, in favour of "Talkback Shows" interviews, where the hosts (who did not specialise in politics) only real objective was entertainment for his target audience
- "Commercial in confidence" became a catchcry to hide government subsidies to business (this is a somewhat complicated discussion as to whether or not "commercial in confidence" is needed)...though democratic government was meant to be accountable to the people.
- one of our idiotic politicians spouted the line, on National TV "There is the truth, the whole truth and the gospel truth" (this was in relation to why election promises are so often broken)
...and a lot that I've forgotten over time.
Our politicians and their machinery has become so convoluted that no one trusts them anymore (go back enough decades and this was not the case). This lack of trust in the government to address issues (and be honest about the issues) leads directly to how much extremism is out there. If X % of people feel the government is constantly lying to them about a particular problem - then Y % of them are much more likely (in todays world) to try and find others who feel the same...which path leads to radicalisation. The less trust in government, the greater that %.
Long story short - the issues you raise are contributing to the extremist positions so many people are taking.
If the Legislature doesn't want people spreading misinformation - they can legislate same. Then, when there is an issue, a court can determine if there actually was one. This 'just let them decide on their say so' is a power no one should want to give to the Legislature....even in defacto form.
Quote:There is no way to "ban" what people say
Ultimiately, I agree. I know you understand how offences, law enforcement and the judiciary work.