The article also includes fines for behavior that is "offensive" -- and you've certainly offended plenty of people in those 34 years, often without ever realizi

The article also includes fines for behavior that is "offensive" -- and you've certainly offended plenty of people in those 34 years, often without ever realizing it. There's a more general problem here as well. What's the difference between porn and art? I mean I'm sure if I show you two things you could probably tell me which is which. But when you try to encode this into law it is incredibly difficult. In more puritanical times various states tried to effect bans on "obscenity" however they struggled to avoid encompassing things that were not "obscene." This is one of the biggest reasons that restrictions on speech, let alone ones that seem to be so vague, are so very dangerous. They can be used, and abused, to great effect whereas their net positive effect is perhaps harder to gauge. In the US we do not have many laws that are so open to social interpretation, but with those that we do, we already see regular lawsuits well outside the spirit of the law that individuals hope to win by force of legal and persuasive prowess alone. Even if France might have a more mature legal culture, who's to say such things will not change? This is why I think when looking at laws, we should not see things through the most positive and optimistic lens, but through the most critical and cynical lens. The reason is because that lowest common denominator is shown, time and again, to end up being what the law will be disproportionately used for.