6 ms·

Some opinions are not only socially incorrect, they can get you to jail. Examples of forbidden topics: homosexuals, non-white people, jews, saying that you don'

by dest 10y ago

Some opinions are not only socially incorrect, they can get you to jail. Examples of forbidden topics: homosexuals, non-white people, jews, saying that you don't need health insurance… Of course not endorsing anything about those topics, just saying that forbiding any debate on those topics may not be a long-term solution to solve those societal questions. We get the popular far-right party FN for some reason I think. Edit to bring "my damn sources": about health insurance http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/amendements/2252/AN/801.asp http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/amendements/2252/AN/801... incitation to anorexia http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2015/04/02/97001-20150402FILWWW00021-loi-sante-un-delit-d-incitation-a-l-anorexie-cree.php http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2015/04/02/97001-20150402F... saying you should not do abortion: https://www.senat.fr/questions/base/1999/qSEQ990415534.html https://www.senat.fr/questions/base/1999/qSEQ990415534.html for other topics, finding sources should be even easier

scrollaway 10y ago
You either have no idea what you're talking about or you're lying on purpose. Or both. Nobody has been jailed for "saying they don't need health insurance". Our freedom of speech, like in the rest of europe, is slightly more restrictive than in the US (as in: there is a concept of restricted hate speech) but the fact that the FN even exists should go a long way to showcase that you don't get jailed for stuff like that. And in the future, if you're going to bring extraordinary claims to HN, bring a damn source. Edit to your edit: I don't think you yourself have read those sources you linked.
- dest 10y ago
  I have updated my original post to provide some sources. It gets slightly off topic and noticeably too political for HN, so maybe we should stop debating about this here.
  - scrollaway 10y ago
    I don't think this is off-topic. But you are completely off the mark. Health insurance: What you linked is an amendment that adds sanctions to illegally refusing social security coverage. Whether you think that's OK or not is irrelevant - it's not a speech issue. "saying you should not do abortion": You are grossly misrepresenting what that is. Abortion is considered an integral right for french women. What your link says is that it's illegal to try to prevent them. > Cet article punit d'un emprisonnement de deux ans et/ou d'une amende de 30 000 francs le fait d'empêcher ou de tenter d'empêcher une interruption volontaire de grossesse ou les actes préalables : soit en pertubant l'accès aux établissements d'hospitalisation publics ou privés satisfaisant aux dispositions de l'article L. 176 du code de la santé publique ; soit en exerçant des menaces ou tout acte d'intimidation à l'encontre des personnels médicaux et non médicaux travaillant dans ces établissements ou des femmes venues y subir une interruption volontaire de grossesse. To translate: Preventing, or attempting to prevent a voluntary abortion is punished by two years in prison and/or a 30000 francs fine. "Either by preventing access to hospitals or threatening/intimidating working personnel or patients."
    - dest 10y ago
      About state health insurance, this link should be clearer, despite not being an official source. People with more Google-fu than me can post other links if they wish. http://www.agipi.com/espace-public/consulter-nos-experts/sante/securite-sociale-et-complementaires-sante/securite-sociale-des-sanctions-severes-pour-les-contrevenants http://www.agipi.com/espace-public/consulter-nos-experts/san... "Depuis le 1er janvier 2007, des sanctions contre toute personne qui, par quelque moyen que ce soit, inciterait les assurés sociaux à ne plus s’affilier à un organisme de Sécurité sociale ou à ne plus payer leurs cotisations sont applicables. Elles prévoient, entre autre, une peine de six mois de prison et/ou une amende allant de 7 500 euros à 15 000 euros." Translation: incitating people to have no health insurance at all can get you to jail (up to 6 months). About abortion: http://www.20minutes.fr/societe/1931599-20160927-ivg-gouvernement-veut-elargir-delit-entrave-sites-desinformation http://www.20minutes.fr/societe/1931599-20160927-ivg-gouvern... "Si l’amendement du gouvernement est voté, le délit d’entrave concernera désormais les sites qui véhiculent «des allégations ou une présentation faussée, pour induire en erreur dans un but dissuasif sur la nature et les conséquences d’une IVG»". If it is not limitation of freedom of speech, I think it is very close. http://www.france24.com/fr/20161129-france-episcopat-proposition-loi-ivg-sites-internet-fausses-informations-provie-avortement http://www.france24.com/fr/20161129-france-episcopat-proposi... "Si le texte est voté, ces faits seront punis des mêmes peines que l’entrave physique à l’avortement ou à l’information sur l’avortement, soit deux ans de prison et 30 000 euros d’amende." So presenting biased information about abortion (at least in the "wrong" direction) can get you to jail (up to 2 years). If my sources are correct, this proves my points. PS: sorry for French quotes. Too lazy to fully translate them.
      - scrollaway 10y ago
        > [inciting] people to have no health insurance at all can get you to jail (up to 6 months). As your previous source said, not having health insurance is illegal in France. We're a far cry from your original "saying that you don't need health insurance". You can say that as much as you want. You just can't push other people to put themselves in an illegal situation. > If it is not limitation of freedom of speech, I think it is very close. [Translated context: It would become illegal to falsify facts about the consequences of abortion] I want to be very clear: The american concept of "Freedom of speech" does not exist in most of Europe. In most of the world outside of the US in fact. It's even a stretch to say it exists in the US. When people think "limitations on freedom of speech" they immediately think China and Iran. But in the US, I can't threaten the president (or people in general, but nobody's gonna jail me for that). I can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. I could give you a lot of american examples which are far more grey area than what you've given me in these sources. The US has these limitations, generally for public safety. In the context of a US-centric forum, claiming that "you can get jailed for speaking against abortions" is abhorrent because the US is still at the stage where abortions are not considered a fundamental right, and there is an ongoing debate about it. Therefore, you think "well, then, half the US would go to jail". In the context of a country that does have a framework around abortion, that does make it a fundamental right and where it's essentially a non-issue... then it's a lot easier to see why it's illegal to publish false information about it. This is a country where gays and muslims are treated with respect, where women's rights are respected and where public health is highly valued. In that context, these restrictions are, like american ones, a matter of public safety.
GrumpyBen 10y ago
You're linking a source that you don't understand. "Toute personne qui refuse délibérément de s’affilier ou qui demande à ne plus être affiliée à un régime de sécurité sociale" This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. And since when is it illegal to talk about homosexuals, non-white people or jews ?
- omginternets 10y ago
  >And since when is it illegal to talk about homosexuals, non-white people or jews ? See: Eric Zemmour You're allowed to talk about them provided the contents of your speech is "they're great and I love everything about them". I'm not particularly fond of Zemmour, but his multiple condemnations absolutely qualify as political censorship.
  - scrollaway 10y ago
    I don't know Zemmour other than by name. So I went on his Wikipedia page to take a look at that. The french one appears to have more information. - Condamnation pour incitation à la discrimination raciale en 2011 - Condamnation pour provocation à la haine envers les musulmans - Condamnation d'I-Télé pour "rupture abusive de contrat" One is about racial discrimination. One is about inciting hate against muslims. The last one is about a private company. The guy also happens to have written a book about gays where... I'll just quote wikipedia: ""gays" would have been stigmatized and isolated, like the lepers of old." Help me out here. How do you get from there to "You're only allowed to talk about gays if you say 'they're great and I love everything about them'"?
    - omginternets 10y ago
      The devil is in the details. What passes for "inciting *" is very broad, and is (in itself) the mechanism by which political censorship is applied. I truly urge you to read up on this affaire. What he actually said really wasn't that big a deal.
      - scrollaway 10y ago

by dest 10y ago

scrollaway 10y ago

You either have no idea what you're talking about or you're lying on purpose. Or both. Nobody has been jailed for "saying they don't need health insurance". Our freedom of speech, like in the rest of europe, is slightly more restrictive than in the US (as in: there is a concept of restricted hate speech) but the fact that the FN even exists should go a long way to showcase that you don't get jailed for stuff like that. And in the future, if you're going to bring extraordinary claims to HN, bring a damn source. Edit to your edit: I don't think you yourself have read those sources you linked.

dest 10y ago
I have updated my original post to provide some sources. It gets slightly off topic and noticeably too political for HN, so maybe we should stop debating about this here.
- scrollaway 10y ago
  I don't think this is off-topic. But you are completely off the mark. Health insurance: What you linked is an amendment that adds sanctions to illegally refusing social security coverage. Whether you think that's OK or not is irrelevant - it's not a speech issue. "saying you should not do abortion": You are grossly misrepresenting what that is. Abortion is considered an integral right for french women. What your link says is that it's illegal to try to prevent them. > Cet article punit d'un emprisonnement de deux ans et/ou d'une amende de 30 000 francs le fait d'empêcher ou de tenter d'empêcher une interruption volontaire de grossesse ou les actes préalables : soit en pertubant l'accès aux établissements d'hospitalisation publics ou privés satisfaisant aux dispositions de l'article L. 176 du code de la santé publique ; soit en exerçant des menaces ou tout acte d'intimidation à l'encontre des personnels médicaux et non médicaux travaillant dans ces établissements ou des femmes venues y subir une interruption volontaire de grossesse. To translate: Preventing, or attempting to prevent a voluntary abortion is punished by two years in prison and/or a 30000 francs fine. "Either by preventing access to hospitals or threatening/intimidating working personnel or patients."
  - dest 10y ago
    About state health insurance, this link should be clearer, despite not being an official source. People with more Google-fu than me can post other links if they wish. http://www.agipi.com/espace-public/consulter-nos-experts/sante/securite-sociale-et-complementaires-sante/securite-sociale-des-sanctions-severes-pour-les-contrevenants http://www.agipi.com/espace-public/consulter-nos-experts/san... "Depuis le 1er janvier 2007, des sanctions contre toute personne qui, par quelque moyen que ce soit, inciterait les assurés sociaux à ne plus s’affilier à un organisme de Sécurité sociale ou à ne plus payer leurs cotisations sont applicables. Elles prévoient, entre autre, une peine de six mois de prison et/ou une amende allant de 7 500 euros à 15 000 euros." Translation: incitating people to have no health insurance at all can get you to jail (up to 6 months). About abortion: http://www.20minutes.fr/societe/1931599-20160927-ivg-gouvernement-veut-elargir-delit-entrave-sites-desinformation http://www.20minutes.fr/societe/1931599-20160927-ivg-gouvern... "Si l’amendement du gouvernement est voté, le délit d’entrave concernera désormais les sites qui véhiculent «des allégations ou une présentation faussée, pour induire en erreur dans un but dissuasif sur la nature et les conséquences d’une IVG»". If it is not limitation of freedom of speech, I think it is very close. http://www.france24.com/fr/20161129-france-episcopat-proposition-loi-ivg-sites-internet-fausses-informations-provie-avortement http://www.france24.com/fr/20161129-france-episcopat-proposi... "Si le texte est voté, ces faits seront punis des mêmes peines que l’entrave physique à l’avortement ou à l’information sur l’avortement, soit deux ans de prison et 30 000 euros d’amende." So presenting biased information about abortion (at least in the "wrong" direction) can get you to jail (up to 2 years). If my sources are correct, this proves my points. PS: sorry for French quotes. Too lazy to fully translate them.
    - scrollaway 10y ago
      > [inciting] people to have no health insurance at all can get you to jail (up to 6 months). As your previous source said, not having health insurance is illegal in France. We're a far cry from your original "saying that you don't need health insurance". You can say that as much as you want. You just can't push other people to put themselves in an illegal situation. > If it is not limitation of freedom of speech, I think it is very close. [Translated context: It would become illegal to falsify facts about the consequences of abortion] I want to be very clear: The american concept of "Freedom of speech" does not exist in most of Europe. In most of the world outside of the US in fact. It's even a stretch to say it exists in the US. When people think "limitations on freedom of speech" they immediately think China and Iran. But in the US, I can't threaten the president (or people in general, but nobody's gonna jail me for that). I can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. I could give you a lot of american examples which are far more grey area than what you've given me in these sources. The US has these limitations, generally for public safety. In the context of a US-centric forum, claiming that "you can get jailed for speaking against abortions" is abhorrent because the US is still at the stage where abortions are not considered a fundamental right, and there is an ongoing debate about it. Therefore, you think "well, then, half the US would go to jail". In the context of a country that does have a framework around abortion, that does make it a fundamental right and where it's essentially a non-issue... then it's a lot easier to see why it's illegal to publish false information about it. This is a country where gays and muslims are treated with respect, where women's rights are respected and where public health is highly valued. In that context, these restrictions are, like american ones, a matter of public safety.

GrumpyBen 10y ago

You're linking a source that you don't understand. "Toute personne qui refuse délibérément de s’affilier ou qui demande à ne plus être affiliée à un régime de sécurité sociale" This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. And since when is it illegal to talk about homosexuals, non-white people or jews ?

omginternets 10y ago
>And since when is it illegal to talk about homosexuals, non-white people or jews ? See: Eric Zemmour You're allowed to talk about them provided the contents of your speech is "they're great and I love everything about them". I'm not particularly fond of Zemmour, but his multiple condemnations absolutely qualify as political censorship.
- scrollaway 10y ago
  I don't know Zemmour other than by name. So I went on his Wikipedia page to take a look at that. The french one appears to have more information. - Condamnation pour incitation à la discrimination raciale en 2011 - Condamnation pour provocation à la haine envers les musulmans - Condamnation d'I-Télé pour "rupture abusive de contrat" One is about racial discrimination. One is about inciting hate against muslims. The last one is about a private company. The guy also happens to have written a book about gays where... I'll just quote wikipedia: ""gays" would have been stigmatized and isolated, like the lepers of old." Help me out here. How do you get from there to "You're only allowed to talk about gays if you say 'they're great and I love everything about them'"?
  - omginternets 10y ago
    The devil is in the details. What passes for "inciting *" is very broad, and is (in itself) the mechanism by which political censorship is applied. I truly urge you to read up on this affaire. What he actually said really wasn't that big a deal.
    - scrollaway 10y ago