3 ms·

I'm sorry that you're being downvoted; I don't think that's warranted. >> Literal thought crimes. > These are explicit acts, not thoughts, and not new offence

I'm sorry that you're being downvoted; I don't think that's warranted. >> Literal thought crimes. > These are explicit acts, not thoughts, and not new offences. > "Contempt of public official", I think they mean "outrage a agent" in French, does not mean the feeling but the act of showing 'contempt' as in insulting or threatening. As the expression is usually used, "thought crimes" can refer to speech acts. This may reflect a difference between American ideas of free speech and those more common in Europe. (I don't understand the variety of European views very well.) Most Americans are going to view anything that smacks of lèse majesté as a thought crime and react accordingly. And I don't think we're wrong to do so.

mytailorisrich 6y ago
Threatening a public official, or even insulting one, is not a thoughtcrime, which means having incorrect thoughts. If some people use the term to mean something else then perhaps it just means that they do not fully understand the words they use. Certainly threats are not free speech. Insults may indeed be considered free speech, but it's hard to argue that insults used in the way described in the law being discussed (which is about serious insults and threats to people while they're working) can serve any useful purpose including in terms of expressing one's opinion. Note that in France this applies to anyone performing a "public service" so you would also in principle be committing an offence by insulting a bus driver. I don't think this is unwarranted or excessive. Free speech is very important but, at least in Europe, people think that this does not give you the right to insult the police, bus drivers, firemen, teachers, etc. to their face while they're working. I note further than in the US "fighting words, "threatening the President", "obscenities", and "true threats" are not protected under free speech.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

Threatening a public official, or even insulting one, is not a thoughtcrime, which means having incorrect thoughts. If some people use the term to mean something else then perhaps it just means that they do not fully understand the words they use. Certainly threats are not free speech. Insults may indeed be considered free speech, but it's hard to argue that insults used in the way described in the law being discussed (which is about serious insults and threats to people while they're working) can serve any useful purpose including in terms of expressing one's opinion. Note that in France this applies to anyone performing a "public service" so you would also in principle be committing an offence by insulting a bus driver. I don't think this is unwarranted or excessive. Free speech is very important but, at least in Europe, people think that this does not give you the right to insult the police, bus drivers, firemen, teachers, etc. to their face while they're working. I note further than in the US "fighting words, "threatening the President", "obscenities", and "true threats" are not protected under free speech.