Eh. grey, grey - or gray, gray?

I am never becoming used to this stuff.

What is the correct thing to say?

Except for they being the "alien thing", of course.

I guess you never see or hear them, of course.

I the USA Gray is standard, In Britain Grey is.

Canada and Australia, heck I can not keep track.

In North America we have lakes, in Scotland we have Lochs.

The short answer::

Both are correct. But either could be marked as incorrect
on a test, depending on geography.

---

Janice

Eh. grey, grey - or gray, gray?

I am never becoming used to this stuff.

What is the correct thing to say?

Except for they being the "alien thing", of course.

I guess you never see or hear them, of course.

Gray, gray... I see only gray.

Yes here in the USA we have free speech, but I rarely post my views in Politics because I fear repercussion. Eric makes his living off of publicly funded grants, especially for his non-seti projects. In the current rabid political climate we have in this country, it would not take much for me to offend some people. This is a very public place. I fear some idiot senator on some powerful committee getting wind of my social, religious or political leanings and somehow being biased against my husband.

I know this sounds silly, but I fear it none the less. Yes I may legally have free speech, but if you want to know what I REALLY think, you will have to get to know me on a more personal level.

Self censoring.

As described by Chomsky in his book Manufacturing consent.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I won't rise to the obvious bait Bobby, I've been around too long.

However I will give you an an example of the differences I meant. Assuming someone's speech is not broadcast on radio or televised, then what is said is probably limited to an audience of few hundred or thousand. Therefore any negative comments don't permeate to far. In the case of newspaper articles the intended audience is many millions.

No-one is going to worry too much about the local nutters wandering up and down the high street with their sandwich boards proclaiming this or that, but constant mud slinging in the national press does have an insidious effect.

Seems to me these issues would be better addressed by making it cheaper to sue for libel than regulating the press.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I would suggest that a much higher percentage of British people would be upset and object to the burning of the Union Jack, than would be the case with the American people and the Stars and Stripes.

Does that give the USA more freedom of expression that the UK? No it doesn't, but what is does do is highlight the general higher lack of respect for their own flag and administration than over here. Does the right to carry guns and burn flags make the States a better country to live in?

You are joking aren't you?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I would suggest that a much higher percentage of British people would be upset and object to the burning of the Union Jack, than would be the case with the American people and the Stars and Stripes.

Does that give the USA more freedom of expression that the UK? No it doesn't, but what is does do is highlight the general higher lack of respect for their own flag and administration than over here. Does the right to carry guns and burn flags make the States a better country to live in?

I won't rise to the obvious bait Bobby, I've been around too long.

However I will give you an an example of the differences I meant. Assuming someone's speech is not broadcast on radio or televised, then what is said is probably limited to an audience of few hundred or thousand. Therefore any negative comments don't permeate to far. In the case of newspaper articles the intended audience is many millions.

No-one is going to worry too much about the local nutters wandering up and down the high street with their sandwich boards proclaiming this or that, but constant mud slinging in the national press does have an insidious effect.

The United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), has ruled that due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is unconstitutional for a government (whether federal, state, or municipality) to prohibit the desecration of a flag, due to its status as "symbolic speech." However, content-neutral restrictions may still be imposed to regulate the time, place, and manner of such expression.

To illustrate: How many people have called our sitting President illegitimate - the birther controversy?

Can you imagine what would happen to a person saying that about the Queen?

In the USA I can burn the Stars and Stripes in front of the White House.

Can you imagine what would happen if I burned the Union Jack in front of Windsor Castle?

Interesting.
I hear an American was arrested in 1984 for burning a US flag on American soil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5wTpFIW300
While I go to teach the evening class, perhaps someone else can look to find if there's more to the story?

As we saw recently over certain "royal nude photos".

Loved the recent coverage that the security forces hand picked the women for the private party upstairs ... just doing their job I'm sure.

---

To illustrate: How many people have called our sitting President illegitimate - the birther controversy?

Can you imagine what would happen to a person saying that about the Queen?

I suspect you would be considered a bit strange, then if you continued to press you point, you would probably receive a visit from the local police fore. If you managed to get the newspapers interested. Well who knows. I still believe unless you were suggesting the Queen should be tarred and feathered you would be seen as a bit of an eccentric. There are plenty of stories of Queen Victoria and the presents Queens late mother being illegitimate.

In the USA I can burn the Stars and Stripes in front of the White House.

Can you imagine what would happen if I burned the Union Jack in front of Windsor Castle?

It actually is not illegal to burn the Union Jack, there was talk of making it so but in never happened. Also not in northern Ireland republican/nationalist do it every day.

PS Actually having thought it through all you would need to do it put the story on the internet, Until the USA crack down on that any story is world wide instantly. As we saw recently over certain "royal nude photos".

---

To illustrate: How many people have called our sitting President illegitimate - the birther controversy?

Can you imagine what would happen to a person saying that about the Queen?

In the USA I can burn the Stars and Stripes in front of the White House.

Can you imagine what would happen if I burned the Union Jack in front of Windsor Castle?

---

For those that have never actually read the 1st amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

I think its important to separate freedom of speech from freedom of the press as in my view they are different.

I could not have asked for a clearer illustration of how little Brits care about their freedoms.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it.

"Outraging Public Decency" is another matter altogether. It is classed as a lewd act in public, e.g. Nudity or urinating.

Not sure how your examples apply to the case of Rick Gibson.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

The United States is a land of free speech. Nowhere is speech freer - not even here where we sedulously cultivate it even in its most repulsive form. -- Churchill

---

I think its important to separate freedom of speech from freedom of the press as in my view they are different. DA notices are issued to the Press to request them to not publish something which in the view of the Government would be considered to compromise National Security. They are not legally enforcable, but all Editors voluntarily comply.

These so called super injunctions have been used recently by famous personalities to prevent publication of information which they claim is not in the public interest. In truth they use their wealth to stop embarrassing private details from being made public. They are being curtailed.

Freedom of speech means that I can within reason, stand in the street and say that the Government is incompetent and should be sacked, provided I don't incite civil disobedience. I might be asked to "move along" by a policeman though if a crowd gathered. Try doing that in China!

"Outraging Public Decency" is another matter altogether. It is classed as a lewd act in public, e.g. Nudity or urinating.

We basically have free speech in the UK.

Not as it is understood in the US you don't. The US has no such thing as "Outraging Public Decency", it would curtail 1st amendment rights, the Westboro Baptists are testimony to the fact that some provision of the 1986 Public Order Act could not be law in the US (A person is guilty of an offense if he displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting), there's no equivalent to DA-Notices or super injunctions, the list goes one ...

I'm frequently amazed at how little Brits appear to value their freedoms, successive governments (left and right) have been curtailing them for as long as I can remember.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

We basically have free speech in the UK. I don't know if it still happens but in the 60's it was an education to go to Hyde Park Corner on a Sunday morning and listen to all the people on soapboxes (literally!). If you look in the Politics threads Uk & USA politicians get pretty well hammered on a regular basis, You wouldn't get that in many countries, even in the Western world.

It all depends upon how you want to define free speech. If you publicly preach insurrection against a government you must expect to be asked to stop before a public order offence is committed. Racial abuse and taunts are not acceptable, and if you libel or slander someone you can end up in court.

Any society has rules of basic behaviour, and using profanities left right and centre is generally frowned upon. If you go around calling a spade a spade without regard for anyone elses feelings, one day you'll get a punch on the nose, either verbally or physically!

The posting rules here at Seti are reasonably tight, but they have to be as this is a public forum open to anyone to view, including young children.

Posts must be 'kid friendly': they may not contain content that is obscene, hate-related, sexually explicit or suggestive.
No messages intended to annoy or antagonize other people, or to hijack a thread.
No messages that are deliberately hostile or insulting.
No abusive comments involving race, religion, nationality, gender, class or sexuality.

Yes we have free speech but within certain limitations. In Angelas case hers are self imposed, but for completely sensible reasons which are obvious to anybody. I pretty much say what I think, here and elsewhere, I don't like hidden agendas, but as I get older I'm getting better at knowing when to back off and keep my thoughts to myself, pretty much most of the time anyway.

Good question Mr Gnu!

I have abused the right.
And admit it here and now.

What one has the right to say does not necessarily mean one should say it.

My bad.

Meow.

---

"Learn from yesterday. Live for today. Hope for tomorrow." Albert Einstein
"With cats." kittyman