Idiot French throw away freedom

[Argus]

France is already probably the most over-regulated nation on Earth. As such is shouldn't surprise anyone that regulations against free speech have been growing in number and strength. There really is no free speech in France any more, because it is so easy to sue people for saying anything that you find offensive. The media have to be extremely careful about how they cover any aspect of stories which deal with ethnic groups in particular, for hate speech laws are probably the most stringent on Earth. Truth isn't really a defense compared to hurt feelings, after all. And the laws in France, unlike the milder ones in Canada, don't just target those who try to defame religious, ethic etc groups publicly. Even private defamation is criminalized. Thus if you say something like "I hate those stupid Arabs. I wish they'd all go back to the middle east" to your neighbour you can go to jail. We're not speaking of hate speech here, just simple insults, as a French cabinet ministers (ex cabinet minister) discovered when he was taped saying something insulting about Muslims

France's not so free speech

But the French fixation on regulation goes well beyond mere insult, although perhaps putting more rapsters in jail might not be a bad thing.

Rapper faces court for calling France a slut

Recently the French made it illegal to deny the Armenian genocide was genocide. That is to say, you don't have to simply say that no slaughter of Armenians took place in the 1st world war to be a criminal. If you accept the slaughter took place, but deny this was genocide, then you're guilty! Arguing technical definitions about historical incidents can put you in jail in France!

Free Speech Fades Away

Now the latest, by a unanimous vote, the French legislature has passed a new law which makes it illegal to insult your spouse. Yes, that's right, if you insult your spouse, by, for example, suggesting they are unattractive, you can go to prison for up to three years.

You think I'm making this up? How could I imagine anything as idiotic as what a French politician can take seriously?

Insults now against the law

[Remiel]

Recently the French made it illegal to deny the Armenian genocide was genocide. That is to say, you don't have to simply say that no slaughter of Armenians took place in the 1st world war to be a criminal. If you accept the slaughter took place, but deny this was genocide, then you're guilty! Arguing technical definitions about historical incidents can put you in jail in France!

For a technical comparison, if someone says that six million Jews were killed in World War II, but denies that it was genocide, would that contravene the sort of Holocaust denial laws that some countries have?

Now the latest, by a unanimous vote, the French legislature has passed a new law which makes it illegal to insult your spouse. Yes, that's right, if you insult your spouse, by, for example, suggesting they are unattractive, you can go to prison for up to three years.

You think I'm making this up? How could I imagine anything as idiotic as what a French politician can take seriously?

You do not quite portray it accurately here, Argus. However, the law is about as heavy handed as it gets. Specifically, it is not really about insulting your spouse, it is more about insulting your spouse repeatedely and visciously; the intent of the law is to curb psychological spousal abuse, not mere arguments. We could go into a whole debate about how these people should be getting a divorce, but that would beside the point. Judges have said that the law is too vague to be actionable, but I am not sure they disagree with the reasoning behind making such a law, just the particular law itself.

[Leafless]

For a technical comparison, if someone says that six million Jews were killed in World War II, but denies that it was genocide, would that contravene the sort of Holocaust denial laws that some countries have?

You do not quite portray it accurately here, Argus. However, the law is about as heavy handed as it gets. Specifically, it is not really about insulting your spouse, it is more about insulting your spouse repeatedely and visciously; the intent of the law is to curb psychological spousal abuse, not mere arguments. We could go into a whole debate about how these people should be getting a divorce, but that would beside the point. Judges have said that the law is too vague to be actionable, but I am not sure they disagree with the reasoning behind making such a law, just the particular law itself.

Why not simply come out and say that you are against free speech.

[Machjo]

Ah the worship of freedom.

I never even bothered reading the article since the OP is quite obviously biased from the start. However, the idea that we must have freedom, total freedom, at all costs is ludicrous. Certainly there must be moderate limits to freedom, no?

Let's not make a religion out of it shall we.

[Argus]

Ah the worship of freedom.

I never even bothered reading the article since the OP is quite obviously biased from the start.

What an interesting take on things. You see, when I presume the OP is biased on something the first thing I want to do is check out the article to find out what it actually says. But then, that's me. I like to know what I'm talking about.

However, the idea that we must have freedom, total freedom, at all costs is ludicrous.

Indeed. But as no one has yet made such an argument, even the Libertarians, I'm not sure who you are trying to make this point to.

Certainly there must be moderate limits to freedom, no?

Limits to freedom should only be enacted upon a demonstrated and incontrovertible evidence that the use of said freedom is harmful to others and to society in general. Limiting a basic freedom, such as speech, for such spurious reasons as people are "offended" by someone's speech leads us on a dangerous path to the elimination of that freedom.

[Machjo]

I've read the articles and agree they go too far. However, the OP seems to portray not just French lawmakers, but the French as a nation, as a people, as idiots. Are you saying that all French think alike, that all French agree with this? Why the vitriol in the thread title? The thread starts off with bias n the title, thus diluting any possible trust the reader has going farther.

[Remiel]

Why not simply come out and say that you are against free speech.

I am against spousal abuse.

...Aren't you?

Edited July 1, 2010 by Remiel

[dre]

Sounds like more typical anti french rhetoric by the same type of retards that dumped out their whine and renamed their fries after France refused to participate in OPERATION: "Oops! Shoulda thought THAT through better!" in Iraq.

I just got back from France incidentally, and I didnt notice any visible restrictions on freedom at all. In fact I noticed a few areas where the French are more free than us. Freedom of movement being on of them... its very easy and affordable to get around in France. I travelled from Paris to Ceret on the fast train, and not only was it dirt cheap and very comfortable but you could walk up to the refreshments car and buy a beer. Id be arrested for drinking beer on most of Canadas public transportation system. Its also very easy to travel from France to surrounding countries. I spent less time getting jacked up in customs during my entire European trip than I did during a single flight to Salt Lake City from Vancouver.

France also gets the highest possible rating in the Freedom House report which does comparative analysis of political and pesonal freedoms.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930918.html

[Machjo]

Sounds like more typical anti french rhetoric by the same type of retards that dumped out their whine and renamed their fries after France refused to participate in OPERATION: "Oops! Shoulda thought THAT through better!" in Iraq.

I just got back from France incidentally, and I didnt notice any visible restrictions on freedom at all. In fact I noticed a few areas where the French are more free than us. Freedom of movement being on of them... its very easy and affordable to get around in France. I travelled from Paris to Ceret on the fast train, and not only was it dirt cheap and very comfortable but you could walk up to the refreshments car and buy a beer. Id be arrested for drinking beer on most of Canadas public transportation system. Its also very easy to travel from France to surrounding countries. I spent less time getting jacked up in customs during my entire European trip than I did during a single flight to Salt Lake City from Vancouver.

France also gets the highest possible rating in the Freedom House report which does comparative analysis of political and pesonal freedoms.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930918.html

From my observations, Europeans have a hell of a lot more freedom across borders than we do. Heck, they can even look for work across the border without a visa. The Canada-US border looks like a military fortification in comparison.

Edited July 1, 2010 by Machjo

[Remiel]

I travelled from Paris to Ceret on the fast train, and not only was it dirt cheap and very comfortable but you could walk up to the refreshments car and buy a beer. Id be arrested for drinking beer on most of Canadas public transportation system.

You can get alcohol on VIA...

[dre]

From my observations, Europeans have a hell of a lot more freedom across borders than we do. Heck, they can even look for work across the border without a visa. The Canada-US border looks like a military fortification in comparison.

I also like to look at the percentage of the population a country imprisons as a measure of freedom.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Prisoner_population_rate_UN_HDR_2007_2008.PNG

It shows how many excuses governments are busy coming up with to COMPLETELY remove a persons freedom. France fairs a little better than Canada in this regard with Canadians routinely imprisoning people for non-violent crime, recreational drug use, etc.

[dre]

You can get alcohol on VIA...

Thanx for the tip

While we are on that subject, I could buy beer, whine, or spirits in virtually any private store in France. In BC where I live I can only buy booze at either a state-run liquor store, or state licensed beer and whine store.

[Remiel]

While we are on that subject, I could buy beer, whine, or spirits in virtually any private store in France. In BC where I live I can only buy booze at either a state-run liquor store, or state licensed beer and whine store.

Same as here in Ontario, more or less. It has never particularly bothered me.

[dre]

Same as here in Ontario, more or less. It has never particularly bothered me.

Me neither. I love living in Canada, and Id have no problem living in France either. Im just pointing out small differences in freedom... not saying they are "showstoppers".

[Machjo]

Me neither. I love living in Canada, and Id have no problem living in France either. Im just pointing out small differences in freedom... not saying they are "showstoppers".

But dre, you don't get it. The French are, well, French. So certainly anything bad we find on France has to be pointed out as a chance to prove that the French are genetically inferior.

Pointing out these kinds of subtleties doesn't help the case.

[Moonlight Graham]

These may not even be related to this thread, but i just read that "French President President Nicolas Sarkozy's approval ratings have reached a new low of 26 per cent" in a new poll. Holy cow even more unpopular than Bush Jr.!

http://www.metronews.ca/edmonton/world/article/568023--poll-sarkozy-s-approval-hits-new-low

[Pliny]

dre:

I don't think a visit to France is the same as living there. Move there, live a few months there and then and tell us the differences in freedoms. I think it will be found it is a whole different world.

As for borders and more freedom - that is what the EU is about, removing border restrictions and eventually borders.

Moonlight Graham:

Sarkozy is supposedly right wing but gets along famously with Obama. Figure that one out? Germany's Merkel is, on the other hand, looking at Obama with a jaundiced eye.

[Machjo]

dre:

I don't think a visit to France is the same as living there. Move there, live a few months there and then and tell us the differences in freedoms. I think it will be found it is a whole different world.

As for borders and more freedom - that is what the EU is about, removing border restrictions and eventually borders.

Moonlight Graham:

Sarkozy is supposedly right wing but gets along famously with Obama. Figure that one out? Germany's Merkel is, on the other hand, looking at Obama with a jaundiced eye.

Pliny, do you know French? I've read sites in French that express a wide range of views, some from France too. How do you account for that?

[naomiglover]

France

The Law stating that denying the Holocaust is an offense was passed in 1990. This is an amendment to a law from 1881 that related to freedom of the press. This law prohibits both anti-Semitism (Law 90-615) and denying the Holocaust (Article 24b, la loi Gayssot). Another law adopted in 2003 sets stiffer punishments for offenses against an anti-Semitic or racist background. (Law no. 2003-88 of February 2003).

In addition, in 2003, the French Government established a permanent inter-ministerial commission to coordinate the activities of the Government in combating anti-Semitism and racism which discusses, inter-alia, possible legislative measures on the subject. [14]

I suppose you are against that as well, Argus?

[Argus]

I suppose you are against that as well, Argus?

I am against laws which punish people for arguing historical facts. If someone wants to say the Holocaust didn't happen, that's fine with me.

I am against laws which criminalize insults and opinion.

I have reluctantly come to accept the need for laws which prohibit what might be called determined campaigns to incite hatred. That is to say, if someone says in passing that he thinks all the Jews/Niggers/Fags should be shot that's fine with me. But if they go on speaking campaigns to churches/temples/mosques around the country and thumping the pulpit about the dangers and evils of jews/niggers/fags etc. that's something else again. I still don't have a problem with them spouting it except insofar as people are likely to actually take them seriously.

For example, I wouldn't have bothered much with Ernst Zundel. He was a harmless clown in his goofy hard hat. He had little chance of instigating anything against anyone. Islamic hatemongers are a different breed, though, because we know that they DO in fact, instigate acts of terrorism among the huge herd of credulous dullards who follow that religion. Including in Canada. And this guy is among those who have "inspired", for want of a better term, young Muslim retards to attack people.

[naomiglover]

I am against laws which punish people for arguing historical facts. If someone wants to say the Holocaust didn't happen, that's fine with me.

I am against laws which criminalize insults and opinion.

I have reluctantly come to accept the need for laws which prohibit what might be called determined campaigns to incite hatred. That is to say, if someone says in passing that he thinks all the Jews/Niggers/Fags should be shot that's fine with me. But if they go on speaking campaigns to churches/temples/mosques around the country and thumping the pulpit about the dangers and evils of jews/niggers/fags etc. that's something else again. I still don't have a problem with them spouting it except insofar as people are likely to actually take them seriously.

For example, I wouldn't have bothered much with Ernst Zundel. He was a harmless clown in his goofy hard hat. He had little chance of instigating anything against anyone. Islamic hatemongers are a different breed, though, because we know that they DO in fact, instigate acts of terrorism among the huge herd of credulous dullards who follow that religion. Including in Canada. And this guy is among those who have "inspired", for want of a better term, young Muslim retards to attack people.

So you're almost for freedom of speech, but not quite.

[Argus]

So you're almost for freedom of speech, but not quite.

There are few absolutes in life, and most absolutists just don't bother or are not capable of thinking through their position.

And Leftists are hardly the people to chide anyone on free speech issues. The Left, collectively, only supports free speech which agrees with them.

[bloodyminded]

There are few absolutes in life, and most absolutists just don't bother or are not capable of thinking through their position.

And Leftists are hardly the people to chide anyone on free speech issues. The Left, collectively, only supports free speech which agrees with them.

This isn't a criticism, however, but your philosophical agreement with them.

[Argus]

This isn't a criticism, however, but your philosophical agreement with them.

Nonsense. My defense of freedom of speech isn't based on Left or Right. Nor is it based on whether I agree with someone or not. It's based on whether that speech can demonstrably be shown to be dangerous to public safety and inciting violence. Thus the cranks like Zundel are not dangerous and their speech should be protected, while the chanting Muslim extremists should be locked up.

[naomiglover]

Nonsense. My defense of freedom of speech isn't based on Left or Right. Nor is it based on whether I agree with someone or not. It's based on whether that speech can demonstrably be shown to be dangerous to public safety and inciting violence. Thus the cranks like Zundel are not dangerous and their speech should be protected, while the chanting Muslim extremists should be locked up.

So you're criticizing France for "throwing away freedom of speech" when you, yourself don't fully believe in freedom of speech.