Toasted Dolphin

My definition is precisely the Bill of Rights- freedom of expression being preeminent. That the Bill is often violated does not make it right.

lkwalker wrote:That the Bill is often violated does not make it right.

Not sure what you mean by the statement above. Can you explain it?

Sure. here are two examples. The 4th Amendment bans 'unreasonable search and seizure' and requires a sworn warrant for legal searches. But the Patriot Act, passed by Congress, allows wire taps and all sorts of other law enforcement expedients that violate both the letter and spirit of that Amendment. Various states have passed laws against 'flag burning' in violation of the 1st Amendments right of free speech. The list of obvious violations are many. Often times the Supreme Court will overturn these kinds of violations of Constitutional protections- as in the case of the 'flag burning' laws and hopefully in the case of the Patriot Act eventually.

The issue up for discussion is a French issue.....subject to French laws. The United States Bill of Rights has zero bearing here.

Yes I realize that. I use US law as an example because it is the one with which I'm most familiar. It's my understanding that French law is similar in its regard for individual rights. Both systems ultimately derive from the philosophy of Rousseau whose main thrust was the delicate balance of conflicting sovereignties- the State versus the Citizen.

But France has a strong principle of laicite as well.

Also, our conversation has allowed me to stumble upon and learn more about this:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/

Taking some time out to read up on it. Don't wallop me with your pesky ( ) conundrums until then, BE!

Still reading up on communitarism...

and Robert Putnam.