Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 29

= July 29 =

criminal charges
Can you bring criminal charges againist someone who has printed information that is untrue?


 * No, nowhere in the world it is a crime to merely intentionally lie about any unspecified subject. A.Z. 01:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless it's libelous. See Libel and slander. -- Mwalcoff 01:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But, you can bring civil charges under the tort of libel. (JosephASpadaro 01:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Libel and slander are civil and not criminal code violations. However, assault can be in the form of speech, with certain careful restrictions.  Geogre 02:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * According to interwiki (I mean, I clicked on Libel and then I clicked on the link to the Portuguese Wikipedia), it is a crime in my country. A.Z. 02:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Libel is generally a civil matter in the U.S. but can be criminal in other countries. As an example of criminal libel, former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin was just charged with "complicity in slanderous denunciations," accused of libeling rival Nicholas Sarkozy. -- Mwalcoff 03:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I found it interesting to learn that libel is a civil matter in the U.S. A.Z. 03:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, the U.S. courts have never said that criminal libel laws are automatically unconstitutional. Some states still have criminal libel laws on the books, but they are not enforced. The cost of defending oneself in civil court generally serves as a good enough disincentive against libeling a private individual. One thing that is somewhat unique about the U.S. is that since the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case, it's almost impossible for a public figure, such as a politician, to win a libel suit. That's how people are able to get away with accusing public figures like Bill Clinton of rape, murder and drug trafficking. -- Mwalcoff 03:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Another thing is that if one succeeds in winning the case, what does one get? For libel, one would want a rectification, but it comes to late - the damage is already done and/or people have forgotten. Also, if it's anewspaper the rectification is likely to be smaller and at a less prominent place. It would make a big difference if courts would force newspapers to print an explanation written by the other party on the same page in the same size (including illustrations and such). How to deal with that for books, I don't know. The logical thing would be to remove it from the shops, but then the process would have to be dealt with very quickly. DirkvdM 07:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Money. Lots and lots of money, if you play your cards right. I don't think an American court can order the removal of publications from the shelves or require a publication to print an apology, although those may be parts of an out-of-court settlement in a libel case. As stated above, the Sullivan precedent makes it very hard for a public figure to win a libel case in America, but the mere threat of an expensive libel defense is usually enough to stop media from making potentially libelous statements about private figures (the so-called libel chill effect). -- Mwalcoff 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In some European countries printing lies about the Holocaust (like writing that it never happened or understating the number of victims, etc.) is a criminal offence. See Laws against Holocaust denial. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 12:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The question is a bit vague since it never specified what is meant by "printed information" ... unless one assumes facts that are not in the original question, then the answer is an unequivocal "yes". Unless you want to clarify the question, consider (just for example): Fraud, Forgery, Perjury, Counterfeit, Malpractice , and Criminal negligence. dr.ef.tymac 14:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ...and the Trade Descriptions Act--Shantavira|feed me 17:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What does footnote # 4 (above) refer to? I can't seem to find it.  Thanks.  (JosephASpadaro 19:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC))


 * It belongs to a different question: click on the ^ and it will take you there. Don't know why this has happened though... Skittle 20:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD
This is a questions for those who has read the novel by Le Carre, "The spy who came in from the cold". my question is about Fielder, who is a jew. i want to know why Mundt (a German) hated Fiedler. i know he wanted Fiedler dead because he was about to be exposed by him. But was Fiedler's death had something to do with his religion too? also, i am about confused about the sotry plot. i have read heaps of information on the internet about the story plot, but none of them tell me whether Lemas was a double agent to and whether and when he knew about Mundt being a double agent too.

Thank you for your time


 * If I recall, the implication at one point is that Mundt was in some way affiliated (or sympathetic to) the Nazis during WWII. At some point they say that Fiedler was a Jew and Mundt was "very much the other" or something like that — implying that he probably got started in intelligence services working for something like the Gestapo, or at the very least that he was an anti-Semite. Remember that this takes place in East Germany, no later than the early 1960s (probably in the late 1950s), and so not a whole lot of time had passed between the Second World War and then.
 * I don't think Lemas was meant to be a double agent; I think it is pretty clear he didn't know that Mundt was a double-agent until the very end. The whole beauty of the story is that particular twist of it, and the fact that Lemas was being kept in the dark by his own masters as well because it served their cause all the better.
 * (If you enjoyed the book, the movie production with Richard Burton is really quite wonderful as well. Very well done.) --24.147.86.187 22:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Eastern European
I heard the term "Eastern European" before and I want to that which European countries, i mean specific ones, are considered as "Eastern European"? Please take your time to answer this question.

See map at Eastern Europe. For future reference, you may get much quicker answers if you used the "search" box on the left.martianlostinspace 18:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Franco and the war
How close did Francisco Franco come to entering the Second World War? Captainhardy 19:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See our article Spain in World War II. After the effects of the Spanish Civil War the country wasn't really in any position to enter the war militarily. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch \ talk 22:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It was at one time the accepted wisdom that Francisco Franco played a very close game, pro-Axis for security and apperance, but always managing to stay free of lavish commitments to Hitler. This view has largely been exploded by the work of Paul Preston, though it still manages to cling on, I see, in the page linked by Ngb.

The important point about Franco is that he was Fascist only in the most superficial sense, and would never have been moved by appeals to soldarity alone from his fellow dictators. He also was deeply resentful of German attempts to take advantage of the massive indebtedness of Spain for aid given to the Nationalists during the Civil War. What he was, though, was a good old-fashioned opportunist, one who did not want to be left on the wings in a German dominated Europe. Above all, as a former Legionnaire and an 'Africanista', he had ambitions to create a new Spanish Empire in Africa, largely at the expense of the French. Recognising that Spain was too exhausted economically to risk prolonged conflict, he was ready to enter the war, so to say, at one minute before midnight. This was the whole basis of his dealings with Hitler in 1940.

For Franco the decisive minute came in June 1940 with the fall of France. According to Ramon Serrano Suner, soon to be Foreign Minister, the Spanish government was swept by a wave of 'pro-war enthusiasm', deepened by Mussolini's entry into the conflict on 10 June. On 19 June Franco offered to enter the war in return for French Morocco, part of Algeria, and an expnsion of Spanish Sahara and Equatorial Guinea, along with substantial economic and military aid. Hitler refused to make any such commitment. Though he was angered by this rebuff, Franco's faith in a German victory did not diminish, and he was still ready to enter the war that autumn. By this time Hitler, checked by the Battle of Britain, was beginning to turn towards a wider 'Mediterranean strategy' in which the Spanish had a part to play. However, in the end, the price demanded by Franco was too high, and the risk of Spanish involvement to wider German strategic considerations too great.

The face to face meeting between Hitler and Franco at Hendaye in October 1940 failed for one simple reason: Spanish demands in Africa could only be granted at the risk of a major reaction in the French colonial empire. At Hendaye Franco was told that "the great problem to be solved at the moment consisted in hindering the de Gaulle movement in French Africa from further expansion, and therby establishing in this way bases for England and America on the African coast." In private conversation with Serrano Suner Franco gave vent to his anger;

These people are intolerable; they want us to enter the war in return for nothing; we cannot trust them if they do not contract, in what we sign, to cede as of now the territories which as explained to them are our right; otherwise we will not enter the war now...After the victory, contrary to what they say, if they do not commit themselves formally now, they will give us nothing.

Franco stayed out of the war not because he was cautious. It was rather more basic: his greed had been frustrated. Clio the Muse 00:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to remark that every nation of Europe was present in the Eastern front, and Spain was no exception. The Blue Division was very active during the Battle of Krasny Bor. The Spanish are known to have looted the cross of the Saint Sophia Cathedral in Novgorod, which until recently had been preserved in Burgos. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

White Australia
Hello, can you tell me how the White Australia policy was sustained and justified politically? I've searched everywhere but can't find it. –203.217.17.48 23:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you read White Australia? Clio the Muse 00:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)