Re: [soac-mapo] Redefiningthe 4th criteria

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think we would quickly disappear down a rathole trying to define (on a global 
basis) any of the following:

"accepted principles of morality"
"proper functioning of a society"
"basic norms of society"
"normal sensitivity"
"blasphemous"
"criminal acts"
"terrorist"

We could find examples that fit these criteria that most of us agree on 
(.incest) but also those that we do not (.revolution, .killer). 


On Aug 31, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> To follow on from Richard Tindall's proposal that one useful path would be to 
> redefine (ie make clearer or more specific) the 4th DAG criteria of:
> e.g. 'legal norms relating to morality and public order' 
> 'recognized under general principles of international law' .
>  
> Again I find some help in the guidelines of the EU TM office.
> See edit below:
>  
> Philip
> ------------------------------------------------
> What it covers
> "Accepted principles of morality are those that are absolutely necessary for 
> the proper functioning of a society".
> "directly against the basic norms of .. society".
> 
> "clear offensive impact on people of normal sensitivity".
> 
> EXAMPLES of exclusion
> 
> "blasphemous, racist or discriminatory phrases, but only if that meaning is 
> clearly conveyed ...in an unambiguous manner"; 
> 
> "direct references or incitements to commit criminal acts".
> 
> "names of terrorist organizations as they would be perceived as a direct 
> support for them"
> 
> What it does NOT cover
> 
> "not concerned with bad taste or protection with feelings of individuals"
> 
> "not what might be considered in poor taste"
> 
> "not applied subjectively as to ...the personal taste of the examiner".
>