5 ms·

france is such a weird place. In some ways it's a very free society. In other ways it's not free at all. Don't most of the euro countries have weird laws abo

france is such a weird place. In some ways it's a very free society. In other ways it's not free at all. Don't most of the euro countries have weird laws about hate speech like this?

trianglem 6y ago
It’s simple. You’re not free to be intolerant. What is intolerant? Anything that involves biological differences that people are unable to change.
- pmlnr 6y ago
  Live and let live - if you follow that, it's ok to hate or be intolerant, just do it quietly, without involving anyone. Trying to block intolerance by force is wrong. Teach how to overcome it, or just teach to keep it to one's self.
- lopmotr 6y ago
  The kids movie Shrek was hate speech for making fun of the king being short? People were actually offended by that but you want the movie outlawed which is extreme.
- dogma1138 6y ago
  So by that definition it’s ok to make fun of fat people because they can go on a diet and hit the gym?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - trianglem 6y ago
    Yes
- jshevek 6y ago
  >What is intolerant? Anything that involves biological differences that people are unable to change. You haven't provided a meaningful answer to your question. For example, praising someone's eyes would be intolerant. Providing a factual description would be intolerance.
Joeri 6y ago
It can be argued the U.S. is the “weird” country for not restricting hate speech. It’s not just the EU, most countries regulate hate speech. This is not perceived as restricting freedom, because it protects the freedoms of the group the hate speech targets (one person’s freedom ends where another’s begins).
- kansface 6y ago
  > it protects the freedoms of the group the hate speech targets Which freedoms would that be?
  - jshevek 6y ago
    I can think of no freedoms that I lose if I am simply mocked, insulted, or criticized. To lose freedom, we have to mix in something else, like for example a targeted harrassment campaign.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    for one their physical safety. Hate speech has real consequences. Hate speech against homosexuals in countries like Russia motivates violent crimes against gay people. The keywords here being stochastic violence and propaganda. Hate speech is used as an intimidation to restrict both the expression and physical safety of the groups it seeks to intimidate.
- asdf21 6y ago
  How does abusive speech, assuming it isn't from a government official, restrict freedom?
- spacephysics 6y ago
  I think the fundamental issue of hate speech is in it's inability to be clearly defined. From https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hate-speech https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hate-... "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence toward a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation" or from https://www.britannica.com/topic/hate-speech https://www.britannica.com/topic/hate-speech "speech or expression that denigrates a person or persons on the basis of (alleged) membership in a social group identified by attributes such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, physical or mental disability, and others." the definitions vary widely. Let's say we nail down a definition. Perhaps closer to Britannica. Then the issue is interpretation. "speech or expression that denigrates a person or persons on the basis of (alleged) membership in a social group": Even alluding to a matter would deem it poor. I support basketball, as it was a sport I grew up with, and is a part of my identity. If someone says "basketball is a stupid game,", well then that's technically hate speech. You can't have a free society with restricted speech.
jakear 6y ago
In which ways is it "very free"? (not necessarily doubting you, but it does seem like I often hear of multitude ways they don't even have freedom of speech)
guggle 6y ago
I don't know where you're from but I'm sure I could find weirdness there, just like everywhere. That said, this law is heavily criticized at the moment, for good reasons.
lykr0n 6y ago
They don't have a US style foundation of Freedom of Speech.
- krapp 6y ago
  France provided part of that foundation. The philosophy of America's founding fathers regarding freedom of speech, and the First Amendment itself, were inspired by (among other sources) The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen from revolutionary France.
rmrfrmrf 6y ago
Are you really free if Jack Dorsey gets to decide what you're allowed to tweet?
smoe 6y ago
I guess it is "weird" in a sense that in various places in Europe online platforms are (and have been for long time) liable for user generated content. E.g. if a Swiss news site has a comment section where users violate anti racism laws, the site owner can be sued since they published and didn't remove it. Regarding free society. I think each one has its own quirks and difference where they consider someone's freedom ends. E.g. the US's handling of nudity and swear words is absolutely bizarre to me as a European and as someone from the US you might think the restriction on speech and use of symbols many places in Europe have go too far.
- filoleg 6y ago
  >the US's handling of nudity and swear words is absolutely bizarre to me as a European and as someone from the US you might think the restriction on speech and use of symbols many places in Europe have go too far. Does the law in the US actually regulate that? I was under the assumption that the nudity prohibition on TV and such was simply a voluntary measure. Facebook is welcome to allow it at any moment, they just choose not to, in order to prevent it from becoming a porn repository. I could be totally wrong on this one, but it makes sense, and it explains why it is still totally allowed elsewhere. Similar to how videogame ratings in the US issued by ESRB are not legally binding and are just a voluntary system that stores use, to decide which games to carry (e.g., most stores won't be carrying Adults Only rated games) and who to sell them to.
  - smoe 6y ago
    Yes I realized after posting, that most of it is probably self-censorship of Google, Facebook and co. But as I understand it public access television is quite heavily regulated in terms of profanity and nudity and you will get fined for violations https://www.fcc.gov/general/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity https://www.fcc.gov/general/obscenity-indecency-and-profanit... E.g. The 2004 Superbowl where Janet Jackson flashed her nipples. Viacom paid out US$3.5 million to settle indecency complaints and got fined 500k which got later overruled because it was only "fleeting" indecency. It sounds to me that ruling could have gone either way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy#Legal_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_sh... But don't know how much of that extends to others forms of media than tv.
trianglem 6y ago
“Weird” I would use the word fantastic instead.
- VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
  not really

france is such a weird place. In some ways it's a very free society. In other ways it's not free at all. Don't most of the euro countries have weird laws about hate speech like this?

trianglem 6y ago

It’s simple. You’re not free to be intolerant. What is intolerant? Anything that involves biological differences that people are unable to change.

pmlnr 6y ago
Live and let live - if you follow that, it's ok to hate or be intolerant, just do it quietly, without involving anyone. Trying to block intolerance by force is wrong. Teach how to overcome it, or just teach to keep it to one's self.
lopmotr 6y ago
The kids movie Shrek was hate speech for making fun of the king being short? People were actually offended by that but you want the movie outlawed which is extreme.
dogma1138 6y ago
So by that definition it’s ok to make fun of fat people because they can go on a diet and hit the gym?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- trianglem 6y ago
  Yes
jshevek 6y ago
>What is intolerant? Anything that involves biological differences that people are unable to change. You haven't provided a meaningful answer to your question. For example, praising someone's eyes would be intolerant. Providing a factual description would be intolerance.

Joeri 6y ago

It can be argued the U.S. is the “weird” country for not restricting hate speech. It’s not just the EU, most countries regulate hate speech. This is not perceived as restricting freedom, because it protects the freedoms of the group the hate speech targets (one person’s freedom ends where another’s begins).

kansface 6y ago
> it protects the freedoms of the group the hate speech targets Which freedoms would that be?
- jshevek 6y ago
  I can think of no freedoms that I lose if I am simply mocked, insulted, or criticized. To lose freedom, we have to mix in something else, like for example a targeted harrassment campaign.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  for one their physical safety. Hate speech has real consequences. Hate speech against homosexuals in countries like Russia motivates violent crimes against gay people. The keywords here being stochastic violence and propaganda. Hate speech is used as an intimidation to restrict both the expression and physical safety of the groups it seeks to intimidate.
asdf21 6y ago
How does abusive speech, assuming it isn't from a government official, restrict freedom?
spacephysics 6y ago
I think the fundamental issue of hate speech is in it's inability to be clearly defined. From https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hate-speech https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hate-... "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence toward a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation" or from https://www.britannica.com/topic/hate-speech https://www.britannica.com/topic/hate-speech "speech or expression that denigrates a person or persons on the basis of (alleged) membership in a social group identified by attributes such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, physical or mental disability, and others." the definitions vary widely. Let's say we nail down a definition. Perhaps closer to Britannica. Then the issue is interpretation. "speech or expression that denigrates a person or persons on the basis of (alleged) membership in a social group": Even alluding to a matter would deem it poor. I support basketball, as it was a sport I grew up with, and is a part of my identity. If someone says "basketball is a stupid game,", well then that's technically hate speech. You can't have a free society with restricted speech.

jakear 6y ago

In which ways is it "very free"? (not necessarily doubting you, but it does seem like I often hear of multitude ways they don't even have freedom of speech)

guggle 6y ago

I don't know where you're from but I'm sure I could find weirdness there, just like everywhere. That said, this law is heavily criticized at the moment, for good reasons.

lykr0n 6y ago

They don't have a US style foundation of Freedom of Speech.

krapp 6y ago
France provided part of that foundation. The philosophy of America's founding fathers regarding freedom of speech, and the First Amendment itself, were inspired by (among other sources) The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen from revolutionary France.

rmrfrmrf 6y ago

Are you really free if Jack Dorsey gets to decide what you're allowed to tweet?

smoe 6y ago

I guess it is "weird" in a sense that in various places in Europe online platforms are (and have been for long time) liable for user generated content. E.g. if a Swiss news site has a comment section where users violate anti racism laws, the site owner can be sued since they published and didn't remove it. Regarding free society. I think each one has its own quirks and difference where they consider someone's freedom ends. E.g. the US's handling of nudity and swear words is absolutely bizarre to me as a European and as someone from the US you might think the restriction on speech and use of symbols many places in Europe have go too far.

filoleg 6y ago
>the US's handling of nudity and swear words is absolutely bizarre to me as a European and as someone from the US you might think the restriction on speech and use of symbols many places in Europe have go too far. Does the law in the US actually regulate that? I was under the assumption that the nudity prohibition on TV and such was simply a voluntary measure. Facebook is welcome to allow it at any moment, they just choose not to, in order to prevent it from becoming a porn repository. I could be totally wrong on this one, but it makes sense, and it explains why it is still totally allowed elsewhere. Similar to how videogame ratings in the US issued by ESRB are not legally binding and are just a voluntary system that stores use, to decide which games to carry (e.g., most stores won't be carrying Adults Only rated games) and who to sell them to.
- smoe 6y ago
  Yes I realized after posting, that most of it is probably self-censorship of Google, Facebook and co. But as I understand it public access television is quite heavily regulated in terms of profanity and nudity and you will get fined for violations https://www.fcc.gov/general/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity https://www.fcc.gov/general/obscenity-indecency-and-profanit... E.g. The 2004 Superbowl where Janet Jackson flashed her nipples. Viacom paid out US$3.5 million to settle indecency complaints and got fined 500k which got later overruled because it was only "fleeting" indecency. It sounds to me that ruling could have gone either way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy#Legal_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_sh... But don't know how much of that extends to others forms of media than tv.

trianglem 6y ago

“Weird” I would use the word fantastic instead.

VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
not really