4 ms·

There's a good overview of it here [1]. The author of the article has a lot of weird twitter opinions these days, but the incidents he's citing here are all rea

by bccdee 5y ago

There's a good overview of it here [1]. The author of the article has a lot of weird twitter opinions these days, but the incidents he's citing here are all real. [1]: https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-laws-are-often-used-to-suppress-and-punish-left-wing-viewpoints/ https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-la...

makeitdouble 5y ago
These events are real, but also more nuanced than how they are presented. For instance the ruling against activists boycotting Israel was based on them focusing on a whole country (with kind words like “Israel murderer”) which by definition will englobe unrelated individuals, in a shop targeted at the diaspora. Think about how it would look if today we had “fuck off China” protests in the middle of Chinatown.
- bccdee 5y ago
  > In 2015, France’s highest court upheld the criminal conviction of 12 pro-Palestinian activists for violating restrictions against hate speech. Their crime? Wearing T-shirts that advocated a boycott of Israel — “Long live Palestine, boycott Israel.” If pro-Uighur activists wore t-shirts that said "long live Xinjiang, boycott China" in Chinatown, do you think they ought to be charged with a crime? Frankly, I find that idea appalling, and I find the conviction of those pro-Palestine activists appalling too.
  - makeitdouble 5y ago
    The center of the case is that they didn’t just wear “Long live Palestine, boycott Israel” shirts and silently shopped for milk. They did a tad more than that, enough to each get 1000 euros fines. Also it’s not like they’re now in concentration camps, they just got a slap on the hand. The whole ruling if you care: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000031374097/ https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000031374097/ The parent correctly warned for the article’s bias, I confirm the author is cherrypicking little parts and blow them up for dramatic effect.

by bccdee 5y ago

makeitdouble 5y ago

These events are real, but also more nuanced than how they are presented. For instance the ruling against activists boycotting Israel was based on them focusing on a whole country (with kind words like “Israel murderer”) which by definition will englobe unrelated individuals, in a shop targeted at the diaspora. Think about how it would look if today we had “fuck off China” protests in the middle of Chinatown.

bccdee 5y ago
> In 2015, France’s highest court upheld the criminal conviction of 12 pro-Palestinian activists for violating restrictions against hate speech. Their crime? Wearing T-shirts that advocated a boycott of Israel — “Long live Palestine, boycott Israel.” If pro-Uighur activists wore t-shirts that said "long live Xinjiang, boycott China" in Chinatown, do you think they ought to be charged with a crime? Frankly, I find that idea appalling, and I find the conviction of those pro-Palestine activists appalling too.
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  The center of the case is that they didn’t just wear “Long live Palestine, boycott Israel” shirts and silently shopped for milk. They did a tad more than that, enough to each get 1000 euros fines. Also it’s not like they’re now in concentration camps, they just got a slap on the hand. The whole ruling if you care: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000031374097/ https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000031374097/ The parent correctly warned for the article’s bias, I confirm the author is cherrypicking little parts and blow them up for dramatic effect.