In ancient Rome the Censor was what we would say today is the registrar -an official keeper of records. To censure is to esteem, to give opinion, or to judge. Over time, the words have merged to form a new function, and today, censorship is the imposition of one wo/man's beliefs of propriety over another wo/man's beliefs of propriety.
State officials in our country, and countries with the same public law, with very poor knowledge of the real public law, are very often attempting to control what men and women do (they know they can't control what men and women think) by either threatening to harm the doers with prosecution or actually prosecuting doers for wrongs that never existed.
In our law system, a harm has to take place for a crime to exist; it is not sufficient to do something contrary to an Act of State, an actual harm must be proven to have taken place by a wo/man to a wo/man. Offending another wo/man is not a harm as almost anything can offend another; neither is insulting or rude behavior a harm. Daily and seemingly everywhere some wo/man is offended, however. It is often pointed out by magistrates, judges, justices, arbiters, and the like that words, and occasionally, gestures do cause harm; but, what they do not tell you is that it is not the words that caused the harm but the revelation of facts the words conveyed that caused the harm or the result of the act of gesturing. There is a difference, a big difference, and a smart and precise wo/man knows the difference.
Below is a brilliant example of a moronic prosecutor harming a man for the acts others did to themselves (they voluntarily viewed). I would represent the man myself, and sue the prosecutor, the prosecutor's manager, their office, the attorney general, and the justice minister for this malicious prosecution of the man of the article below.
Man faces hate crime charge in Scotland over dog's 'Nazi salute'
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/09/nazi-salute-dog-man-faces-hate-crime-charge-scotland
State officials in our country, and countries with the same public law, with very poor knowledge of the real public law, are very often attempting to control what men and women do (they know they can't control what men and women think) by either threatening to harm the doers with prosecution or actually prosecuting doers for wrongs that never existed.
In our law system, a harm has to take place for a crime to exist; it is not sufficient to do something contrary to an Act of State, an actual harm must be proven to have taken place by a wo/man to a wo/man. Offending another wo/man is not a harm as almost anything can offend another; neither is insulting or rude behavior a harm. Daily and seemingly everywhere some wo/man is offended, however. It is often pointed out by magistrates, judges, justices, arbiters, and the like that words, and occasionally, gestures do cause harm; but, what they do not tell you is that it is not the words that caused the harm but the revelation of facts the words conveyed that caused the harm or the result of the act of gesturing. There is a difference, a big difference, and a smart and precise wo/man knows the difference.
Below is a brilliant example of a moronic prosecutor harming a man for the acts others did to themselves (they voluntarily viewed). I would represent the man myself, and sue the prosecutor, the prosecutor's manager, their office, the attorney general, and the justice minister for this malicious prosecution of the man of the article below.
Man faces hate crime charge in Scotland over dog's 'Nazi salute'
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/09/nazi-salute-dog-man-faces-hate-crime-charge-scotland
