Russian city bans spreading of 'homosexual propaganda'

[Mad Scientist]

Under a new bill passed by the Russian city of St. Petersburg, individuals and organizations can be fined for spreading "homosexual propaganda" in the presence of children, RT Russia reports.

The bill bans the dissemination of information "which could cause damage to the health or moral and spiritual development of minors, including by inducing them to form warped perceptions that traditional and non-traditional married relations are equally socially acceptable," according to the the British newspaper The Independent.

"Propaganda" is defined by the bill as "enticements, positive opinions and comments that promote non-traditional sexual and family relations to minors."

The chief backer of the measure said it is aimed at "themed" clubs of teenagers and the spreading of information about homosexuality on social networks, RT reports.

Fines would range from the equivalent of $150 for individuals to $16,000 for organizations.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/02/ban-homosexual-gay-propaganda-russia-st-petersburg/1

:whee:

[Danman114]

'democracy' at it's finest, I guess.

[charles052]

If propaganda wasn't a form of free speech, I'd like to see it outlawed period for all groups. Nothing but the cold hard, plain truth for all concerned.

[horskj]

'democracy' at it's finest, I guess.




Democratic?... Don’t be fooled by the appearance of Democracy in Russia.

Here is a little lesson into Russian culture, little to no tolerance for homosexuals, the majority of the population 80 to 85 percent belong to the Orthodox Church. Little to no tolerance for blacks as well, the view comes from the 1600’s.

[TRNT]

'democracy' at it's finest, I guess.Here is a remaining question:

You kinda mocked our "democracy" because 18 million voted for a measure and two judges overturned it. So I have a question for you: in you ideal system of government, would the US have a federal Constitution?

[politicaljunkie]

If propaganda wasn't a form of free speech, I'd like to see it outlawed period for all groups. Nothing but the cold hard, plain truth for all concerned.

It didn't say that the propaganda was untrue.

[Danman114]

Here is a remaining question:

You kinda mocked our "democracy" because 18 million voted for a measure and two judges overturned it. So I have a question for you: in you ideal system of government, would the US have a federal Constitution?
In my ideal system of government people couldn't vote other people's resources away from them.

I don't think there is 1 ideal form of government. I think many different forms could exist and all accomplish similar goals.

[TRNT]

In my ideal system of government people couldn't vote other people's resources away from them.

I don't think there is 1 ideal form of government. I think many different forms could exist and all accomplish similar goals.Well, you are not answering. And the vote on homosexual marriages was not about resources.

At any rate, how do you suppose a governmental should get funds to function?

[Danman114]

Well, you are not answering. And the vote on homosexual marriages was not about resources. Did you see the fines? Do you think the enforcement of such is w/o cost?

At any rate, how do you suppose a governmental should get funds to function?
Ideally, voluntarily. Possibly via fees charged for use of services and use of land owned by the government. Really, it depends on the structure of that particular society.

[TRNT]

Did you see the fines? Do you think the enforcement of such is w/o cost?


Ideally, voluntarily. Possibly via fees charged for use of services and use of land owned by the government. Really, it depends on the structure of that particular society.Are fines/fees not based on laws? Laws that people vote to take money from others?

In your ideal world, how did the government end up with all that land?

[Danman114]

Are fines/fees not based on laws? Laws that people vote to take money from others? If you make it against the law to work, and fine people for breaking that law to fund government, are you really making a legitimate law? Or are you just taking from those who work to fund something else?

Similarly, if you fine speach
that is simply an expression of opinion (not a threat of violence in any manner), aren't you similarly just taking from one disadvantaged minority to give to the majority?

In your ideal world, how did the government end up with all that land?
They would have murdered countless inhabitants that where there before them.

no, wait...

Ideally, they would have homesteaded it.

[TRNT]

If you make it against the law to work, and fine people for breaking that law to fund government, are you really making a legitimate law? Or are you just taking from those who work to fund something else?

You did not answer the question about fees.

(Am I forcing you to have this conversation? If not, why does it feel like I am pulling teeth?)

They would have murdered countless inhabitants that where there before them.

no, wait...

Ideally, they would have homesteaded it.Maybe I am mistaken but it seems again you did not answer the question. In your ideal gov set up, how did the gov end up with all those lands?

How could the gov fund the military? In your ideal gov you cannot OVERcharge for other services and then pay for the military. Can you?

I think your model is beyond ideal and theoretical. I think it is fantastical.

[TRNT]

If you make it against the law to work, and fine people for breaking that law to fund government, are you really making a legitimate law? Or are you just taking from those who work to fund something else?

Similarly, if you fine speach
that is simply an expression of opinion (not a threat of violence in any manner), aren't you similarly just taking from one disadvantaged minority to give to the majority?


They would have murdered countless inhabitants that where there before them.

no, wait...

Ideally, they would have homesteaded it.And I just now realized, you did not answer the federal constitution question either. In your ideal gov for US, would there be a federal constitution or not?

[tooshorttoplay]

Here is a remaining question:

You kinda mocked our "democracy" because 18 million voted for a measure and two judges overturned it. So I have a question for you: in you ideal system of government, would the US have a federal Constitution?

Funny.. complaining about majority rule getting overturned by 2 judges.. When the real majority doesn't want what your 18 million does, you cry foul..

Works both ways, you know..

While the country is starting to smolder, politicians waste their time on whether 2 guys can marry.. I guess that keeps ignorant people busy enough not to think about the important issues.. like how the government doesn't really care what people want..

[Danman114]

And I just now realized, you did not answer the federal constitution question either. In your ideal gov for US, would there be a federal constitution or not?
I'm sure there would be some written rules, sure.

Would it be exactly as is? Probably not.

[OhNoItsDEVO]

If propaganda wasn't a form of free speech, I'd like to see it outlawed period for all groups. Nothing but the cold hard, plain truth for all concerned.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

sorry sorry..... whewww....

:lmao:

[hsjpatman]

If propaganda wasn't a form of free speech, I'd like to see it outlawed period for all groups. Nothing but the cold hard, plain truth for all concerned.

Free speech is a bitch isn't it?
Even when you know it will lead to bestiality and other perversions, you have to stand by it.

[TRNT]

I'm sure there would be some written rules, sure.

Would it be exactly as is? Probably not.So in your ideal gov what do you do when 18 millions pass a law that violates the constitution?

[Danman114]

So in your ideal gov what do you do when 18 millions pass a law that violates the constitution?
I would say, "Sorry 18 million people."

Then again, I'm not the one trumpeting the amazing wonders of democracy.