European Politics

LooseCannon said:
France is in the middle of that discussion right now. This guy has pushed it before. I tend to land on the side of free speech, of course, and I think this is wildly unacceptable.
Click to expand...

You support his arrest? I agree the guy seems like a total asshole.
 
Forostar said:
Yeah, in the USA he probably wouldn't be arrested(?), but then again: I think that European media show the cartoons more often than in the US (e.g. I heard CNN wouldn't do it because they thought it would be too dangerous).
Click to expand...

Several US news outlets, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, NPR are not showing the cartoons. They claim it is not to upset Muslims .. which is a lame argument IMO. But they are self-censoring idiots, much different than being arrested.
 
Censorship is exactly what should not happen. By arresting a hateseeder, you give in less to terrorism than when you censor cartoons.
 
Forostar said:
Censorship is exactly what should not happen. By arresting a hateseeder, you give in less to terrorism than when you censor cartoons.
Click to expand...


Self censoring is a poor judgement call IMO, arresting someone for speech is 100% wrong and vile and much much worse than MSNBC (or the BBC for that matter) deciding not to print the cartoon (which they should, because the cartoon itself is the center of the story). On the other hand, several news orgs have published it (Fox, Huffington Post, Washington Post, Politico).

Here is NPRs flawed reasoning

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...youre-not-seeing-those-charlie-hebdo-cartoons
 
For those who don't know Charlie Hebdo and would like to understand better why they were such a desirable target for religious fanatism, here is a picture published today. The legend goes : "Finally, on essential matters, we tend to agree".

For Dieudonné, he now pays for a long record of provocations, including denying the actual existence of the Shoah (which in France is forbidden)+.
 

Attachments

  • B7TBc64IQAAMa3q.jpg large.jpg
    B7TBc64IQAAMa3q.jpg large.jpg
    37.5 KB · Views: 8
That kind of speech the terrorists were hitting, is not censored.
bearfan said:
where freedom of expression starts and ends
Click to expand...
This is a difficult debate but it should take place. I am not sure how the law works in France, but in the Netherlands Wilders will be prosecuted for saying this:
"Do you want in this city and in the Netherlands less or more Moroccans?" *audience shouts: Less! Less!*
Wilders says: "We are going to fix that for you"
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
In the US are you saying you can say whatever you want, without there ever being legal consequences?
Click to expand...


The legal exceptions are treason (classified documents) and speech that causes a "clear and present danger" .. the oft cited example is falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.

For opinion, even horribly bad opinions, I cannot think of an instance where someone could be arrested. Certainly not stuff like this

=========================

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...fending-terror-announces-crackdown/ar-AA8912z
PARIS (AP) — France ordered prosecutors around the country Wednesday to crack down on hate speech, anti-Semitism and glorifying terrorism, announcing that 54 people had been arrested for those offenses since the Paris terror attacks.

The order came as Charlie Hebdo's defiant new issue sold out before dawn around Paris, with scuffles at kiosks over dwindling copies of the satirical newspaper fronting the Prophet Muhammad.

Like many European countries, France has strong laws against hate speech and especially anti-Semitism in the wake of the Holocaust. In a message distributed to all French prosecutors and judges, the Justice Ministry laid out the legal basis for rounding up those who defend the Paris terror attacks as well as those responsible for racist or anti-Semitic words or acts.

Among those detained was Dieudonne, a controversial, popular comic with repeated convictions for racism and anti-Semitism.

The attacks that left 17 people dead are prompting France to tighten security measures but none of the 54 people detained have been linked by authorities to the attacks. That is raising questions about whether the government is impinging on the freedom of speech that Charlie Hebdo so vigorously defends.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
In the US are you saying you can say whatever you want, without there ever being legal consequences?
Click to expand...

Most of the limitations on free speech in the US are related to public safety. You're not allowed to incite a riot or to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater.

Telling a falsehood is not illegal (for instance, holocaust denial is legal here). Slander and libel are civil crimes (it's not the government coming for you, but the person you harmed).

"Hate speech" is illegal in some places but you won't get arrested for it (unless you cross the line into inciting violence by others). However, you'll be charged with it to make the crime worse if there is a crime. Beat up a Muslim with no apparent explanation and it's "just" battery. Hate speech against Muslims before the beatdown makes it assault and battery (assault is actually verbal), and it becomes a Federal hate crime.
 
Forostar said:
That kind of speech the terrorists were hitting, is not censored.

This is a difficult debate but it should take place. I am not sure how the law works in France, but in the Netherlands Wilders will be prosecuted for saying this:
"Do you want in this city and in the Netherlands less or more Moroccans?" *audience shouts: Less! Less!*
Wilders says: "We are going to fix that for you"
Click to expand...


It is horrible he is being prosecuted for that ...
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
Most of the limitations on free speech in the US are related to public safety. You're not allowed to incite a riot or to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater.

Telling a falsehood is not illegal (for instance, holocaust denial is legal here). Slander and libel are civil crimes (it's not the government coming for you, but the person you harmed).

"Hate speech" is illegal in some places but you won't get arrested for it (unless you cross the line into inciting violence by others). However, you'll be charged with it to make the crime worse if there is a crime. Beat up a Muslim with no apparent explanation and it's "just" battery. Hate speech against Muslims before the beatdown makes it assault and battery (assault is actually verbal), and it becomes a Federal hate crime.
Click to expand...


It is not inciting violence but imminent violence. Which is an important distinction.
 
Yes, we value probable (non immediate) violence out here. If it might happens later, better prevent it as much as possible.

How or when is racism (or discrimination) prosecuted in the US? Where does it start?
 
Forostar said:
Yes, we value probably violence out here.

How or when is racism prosecuted in the US? Where does it start?
Click to expand...


It is prosecuted if someone actually does something (deny a job, housing, an actual crime,,etc based on race would be examples) ... not based on what someone says unless there is an immediate action
 
My point was that you're openly criticising European so called "free speech", while "free speech" in the US has just as many (but sometimes different) qualifications to it i.e. ultimate "free speech" (no consequences) doesn't exist anywhere in the world, not even in the West. It just makes discussion slightly difficult when it's not clear what exactly you mean by "free speech".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top