Liberal Road Blog Individual Freedom and Equality

I am fervant defendent of the freedom of speech and think that most European countries are still limiting too much the freedom of speach in some situations.

However there is one thing in which the freedom of speech laws in Europe and North America have completly missed the point: they don’t offer any privacy for famous people.

Tabloids and some magazines are constantly writing details about the private life of stars without their concent. And unfortunately most of the time they have the right to do so according to the law. However sometimes it leads to lawsuits like now that Paris Hilton is suing a website to stop them publishing personal items and information (source: article on CNN).

I think it’s sad that once you are famous you often no longer have the right to privacy. I think the media shouldn’t be allowed to tell the private life of famous people without their conscent.

Why do I support this? Because I believe everyone should have the right to live in privacy if they want to. Publishing details about their private life without their conscent is violating their rights to privacy. I believe it’s a sufficient reason to limit the freedom of expression (the individual freedom should be limited only if the action violates the rights of others and I think it’s the case here).

1 Comment »

As I surfed on the web this weekend I ran into this interesting video: Busted - The Citizen’s Guide to Surviving Police Encounters. It describes well the rights you have when confronting the police (applies only in the USA) and what you should do.

[gv data="yqMjMPlXzdA"][/gv]

The video has been made by Flex Your Rights.

I think it’s important that everyone has rights against the police for privacy reasons. The privacy should be limited only to a reasonable extent as necessary to guarantee the individual freedom of others (for ex. to reduce crimes that violates the individual freedom of others).

If the police was allowed to search anyone at any time for no special reason it would be a dangerous step toward a surveillance state (Big Brother -state at the end).

As laws are different in every country the information on the video applies only to the United States (but apparently not if you are suspected of terrorism as described in the Patriotic Act). Local laws of other countries should be checked.

I’ll make a small research about the rights in Sweden in similar situations when I have a bit more time. I’ll put a link here when I’ve done it.

Add a Comment »

Today as I surfed around the web this news hit my eyes. The Chinese Communist party chief Hu Jintao has announced he wants to “purify” the Internet. Whatever it means in practice this time it may be again bad news for the freedom of speech in China.

The Internet is heavily censored in China. The Great Firewall, as it is called, blocks the access to many websites.

Many of the blocked websites contain information or comments criticizing the Chinese government. Also websites containing information about events the government wants to hide are censored (like the Tiananmen Square events in 1989).

This censorship is a serious violation of the individual freedom. Everyone should be free to say whatever they want to with only few restrictions (which are for example libel, threatening someone, encouraging someone to seriously harm another or privacy reasons).

I personally could confirm the censorship when I traveled in China in winter 2006. Many major foreign press websites were censored (as the BBC). I also tried to access websites about the Tiananmen Square events of 1989 and Falun Gong, without much success.

I however realized that accessing censored website was quite easy using foreign proxies. However some proxy websites were also blocked. I also suppose that using proxies in China to access censored websites can potentially lead to troubles with the police.

For more information about Internet in China I recommend the following page from Reporters Without Borders: link

It will be interesting to see if my website too will be censored in China.

1 Comment »

As I looked at the news I found the following news. A proposition (link in Swedish) backed by the School Minister of Sweden would allow teachers to confiscate mobile phones and mp3-players from disturbing students in Sweden. If accepted the new law would enter into force in fall 2007.

Honestly I have to say the proposition is a very bad idea. We should have more respect for the property of others. It’s true that according to the proposition the confiscated items would be given back at the end of the day, but still it’s a violation of property.

If the confiscated items were a security threat to others I would understand it better, but it’s not the case.

Add a Comment »

A school in southern Sweden has decided that students are allowed to speak only in Swedish (link in Swedish: Dagens Nyheter). The decision forbids other languages not only during class lessons, but also during breaks.

A wrong decision I think. It’s discriminating foreign students as they won’t be allowed to use their mother thongs even when speaking with other foreign students. I also think it’s an unacceptable limitation of students’ freedom of speech. Why should schools have the right to decide what language students use when speaking to each other?

Sure, the decision has been made for security reasons so that no one will be able to think someone insulted him or her in an other language. The school has had serious security incidents. But still, the cause doesn’t justify this rule. It’s the wrong medicine to the problem. Everyone should have the right to use their language when they want to.

Add a Comment »

Today I found this funny news: The Swedish file-sharing website The Pirate Bay wants to buy an own nation - the micro nation of Sealand. I decided to make some further research about it all.

The Pirate Bay is one of the biggest websites for file-sharing. It has faced some legal challenges and its servers were raided by the Swedish police in May 2006. However the site came back quickly on the Internet.

Now The Pirate Bay wants to buy its own island: Sealand. This would enable The Pirate Bay to avoid copyright laws and potential legal threats.

The funny thing in all this is that Sealand is actually a naval platform from world war II off the British coast. It measures about 550m² and having usually less than 10 inhabitants… Well, definitely not a lot! Sealand has declared itself independent and has an own money, own stamps, own laws and issues own passports. However no other country has recognized its independence.

The Pirate Bay has opened a website (buysealand.com) to raise funds to buy Sealand. It promises to give Sealand’s citizenship to everyone making a donation if they manage to buy the island. However we’ll see if The Pirate Bay manages to raise enough funds: the price asked is reported to be £500 millions (about EUR770 millions, USD990 millions). And that’s a lot of money to raise.

Add a Comment »

Immigration should be completely free. Yes, I support free immigration and oppose immigration laws restricting foreigner’s rights to come in a country. The world shouldn’t have country borders we are not allowed to cross.

I know this is not a widely supported position in the political debates worldwide. It´s a pity : it should be much more discussed as an option.

One of the most basical reasons why I oppose laws restricting immigration is that they limit the freedom of individuals in an unacceptable way. Depending on the nationality you have you will be allowed to move to only certain countries. Other countries you may only visit as a tourist, but are not allowed to move there.

One common argument for limiting foreigners’ right to come and work in a country is that foreigners are taking the jobs and thus creating unemployment. But why should the citizens of this country have a higher right to the jobs than foreigners? Why would some people have a priority to jobs?

Furthermore, immigration can also benefit the country welcoming immigrants: people from different cultures have different points of views, ideas and this enriches the culture of this country.

Immigration laws are also very unfair. Depending of where you were born or who your parents are (and thus the nationality you get) you have completely different rights. If you are from a poor country, for example an African country, you’ll need visas to enter pretty much any country and there are usually loads of requirements to fulfill. If you are from a rich country, you won’t need visas in many cases and the requirements are much smaller.

1 Comment »

Since the blogospher seems to be still discussing Saddam Hussein’s execution, I though it would be a good opportunity to comment the hanging and the death penalty in general.

As we know Saddam Hussein was hanged in the last days of last year. I have to say I actually see the execution as a human rights violation.

But don’t understand me wrong. Sure, Saddam Hussein had done many horrible things in his life and should have been punished for them. But even the worst criminals have rights. And the right to life is one of them.

The right to life is one of the most basical rights that everyone should have. It shouldn’t be a right that is earned by being a good citizen by following the rules of the society. No, it should be a right that everyone, even the worst criminals, has.

Jail is much more approriate than the death penalty for the worst crimes.

1 Comment »

Today as I read the news on the Internet I came across an article about an interesting Swedish opinion poll (link: SVT in Swedish). According to this poll 91% are for camera surveillance in public places, 87% are for secret wiretapping of phone calls by the police and 51% wants that a dna-register is created about the whole population.

Hang on a second. 91% is for camera surveillance in public places? Every other person is for a dna register covering the whole population? Yes, that’s the numbers. I knew that many have become positive to increased control and less privacy the last years. But still I had to double check the numbers before I believed I read correctly.

The strength of the support surprised me. And I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one.

But opinion polls should always be taken with precaution. It all depends about how you ask it. By changing a little bit how the question is asked you may get a different result. For example if instead of asking “Do you support secret wiretapping of phone calls?” you ask ” Do you support secret wiretapping of phone calls without a court order?” you will get a different result.

Unfortunately the media didn’t report the exact questions asked. It would have been interesting to know them.

Maybe I shouldn’t have been so surprised. After all Sweden is a country where a lot of information is public and privacy is already limited more than in many other countries. For example the tax information is public. It means that anyone can get the information about how much you earned in the past years. And that’s just an example.

3 Comments »

One thing the draw my attention today was health care costs. Health care is one of the basic needs that should be free to everyone. It is necessary in order to guarantee the equality.

The problem when patients have to pay for the health care is that those with low incomes won’t have the same chances to afford it. It can also dissuade the poor to go to doctor. However being sick can limit quite a lot what you can do in life.

Nowadays in Sweden you pay usually between 100 and 150 Swedish crowns (approximately EUR10-16, USD14-20, GBP7-10 with current exchange rates) to visit a doctor. However, it is only a fraction of the real costs and the rest is financed by taxes. It is also only a fraction of the price in some other countries. But still, it is a lot of money for the poorest (for example the homeless, some the unemployed and so on). Even if they can afford it they may prefer not to go to doctor until they really have to.

One commonly used argument against free health care is that if going to a doctor is free, people would run there for almost nothing. This leads to increased costs to the state and possibly higher taxes. Here I want to ask: isn’t it better that people visit a doctor too often than too seldom (when it may be too late for treatment)?

Money shouldn’t be an obstacle in getting treatment.

7 Comments »