5 ms·

OK so let me get this straight: Many French tweeted jokes about "#UnBonJuif" (translation: a good jew), then an organization called UEJF (Union of French Jewish

by eeky 13y ago

OK so let me get this straight: Many French tweeted jokes about "#UnBonJuif" (translation: a good jew), then an organization called UEJF (Union of French Jewish Students) goes on a legal attack and manages to get Twitter to cough up the info on the "perpetrators" and now those users are facing jail time? Two conclusions I can make here: France, despite being a proponent of "liberte", does not have freedom of speech. Secondly, don't insult Jews, even on the internet.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
While over here if you make a terrorism joke and then immediately say that you were joking, you also face jail time.
- cenhyperion 13y ago
  With unreasonable bails, and a "speedy trial" means within a year or so.
TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago
No, in Europe we have the concept of "freedom of speech has limits". Basically, you are free to speak, but you are not free to make hate speech.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  Definition of hate speech - anything that can make anyone vaguely uncomfortable or the government don't like. It will be interesting to compare east and west Germans on their attitudes towards free speech since the last had to "enjoy" the rule of communist party. (disclaimer - my relatives were prosecuted in the 40s-50s from the newly empowered communist party in Bulgaria) When a nation lives trough that you become to respect the almost absolute freedom US enjoys.
  - scotty79 13y ago
    Like US freedom to joke online in a way that some Canadian women thinks could be a terrorist threat?
    - pstuart 13y ago
      Well, the notions that many still hold dear.
- eeky 13y ago
  >freedom of speech has limits Well it's not really freedom of speech then, is it? I understand physical dangers like yelling fire in a theater, but this is limiting what can actually be expressed despite the context. "Hateful language" is defined by the victim's feelings, and someone expressing their speech has no control over that. Perhaps someone innocuously posts a picture of Muhammed unknowing that it just offended millions of Muslims who want him punished for his "hateful language". So you can't draw the line when people's feelings are involved. I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. EDIT: -Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall
  - adsche 13y ago
    >-Voltaire Just FYI: Nope, not Voltaire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall
  - pstuart 13y ago
    Funny thing about the "crowded theater" bit, because it was used to stifle free speech: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
  - oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
    "but this is limiting what can actually be expressed despite the context" Not at all; the context - twitter, essentially a public broadcaster - is highly relevant. Most of us would defend the right of an individual to express themselves however they wish in private - or even in most public, but 'local' situations - even in terms of the abhorrent language/concepts expressed in this case. However, when your platform is a national - even global - one, the context is radically different, and incitement to commit racist crime becomes possible. As you admit, there is no such thing as 100% free speech, even in the USA, so it will always be a case of finding the line somewhere. In Europe, we just happen to have the line slightly closer to civility, something of which I am very glad.
- coldtea 13y ago
  So, you're not free to speak. Because somebody else gets to decide what's "hate speech". Speaking against the aristocrats, back in the day, would also be regarded as "hate speech". Or speaking against class privilege, now. And of course, anybody talking against mass immigration (which, as a social phenomenon has a lot of downsides too), will easily be classified as "hate speaker" too.
  - klearvue 13y ago
    "speaking against class privilege, now...", "anybody talking against mass immigration...will easily be classified as 'hate speaker' too" - please cite a single law of any European country classifying those as hate speech. Up until then I'll say you are spouting utter rubbish.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      >please cite a single law of any European country classifying those as hate speech That's utterly naive, don't you think? They don't have to specifically classify those as hate speech. They just have to make the law vague enough -- and then the "offended parties", activists and other over-sensitive folks jump to take the opportunity. """In England, Wales, and Scotland, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says: A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if— (a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.""" Can it be any more vague? Here's an example of such laws in action: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7842344.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7842344.stm Would you be OK if Atheists couldn't talk against Christianism in the same way? >Up until then I'll say you are spouting utter rubbish. You can say anything you want -- however rude and ad hominen. I'm for free speech after all.
      - desas 13y ago

by eeky 13y ago

foobarbazqux 13y ago

While over here if you make a terrorism joke and then immediately say that you were joking, you also face jail time.

cenhyperion 13y ago
With unreasonable bails, and a "speedy trial" means within a year or so.

TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago

No, in Europe we have the concept of "freedom of speech has limits". Basically, you are free to speak, but you are not free to make hate speech.

venomsnake 13y ago
Definition of hate speech - anything that can make anyone vaguely uncomfortable or the government don't like. It will be interesting to compare east and west Germans on their attitudes towards free speech since the last had to "enjoy" the rule of communist party. (disclaimer - my relatives were prosecuted in the 40s-50s from the newly empowered communist party in Bulgaria) When a nation lives trough that you become to respect the almost absolute freedom US enjoys.
- scotty79 13y ago
  Like US freedom to joke online in a way that some Canadian women thinks could be a terrorist threat?
  - pstuart 13y ago
    Well, the notions that many still hold dear.
eeky 13y ago
>freedom of speech has limits Well it's not really freedom of speech then, is it? I understand physical dangers like yelling fire in a theater, but this is limiting what can actually be expressed despite the context. "Hateful language" is defined by the victim's feelings, and someone expressing their speech has no control over that. Perhaps someone innocuously posts a picture of Muhammed unknowing that it just offended millions of Muslims who want him punished for his "hateful language". So you can't draw the line when people's feelings are involved. I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. EDIT: -Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall
- adsche 13y ago
  >-Voltaire Just FYI: Nope, not Voltaire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall
- pstuart 13y ago
  Funny thing about the "crowded theater" bit, because it was used to stifle free speech: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
- oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
  "but this is limiting what can actually be expressed despite the context" Not at all; the context - twitter, essentially a public broadcaster - is highly relevant. Most of us would defend the right of an individual to express themselves however they wish in private - or even in most public, but 'local' situations - even in terms of the abhorrent language/concepts expressed in this case. However, when your platform is a national - even global - one, the context is radically different, and incitement to commit racist crime becomes possible. As you admit, there is no such thing as 100% free speech, even in the USA, so it will always be a case of finding the line somewhere. In Europe, we just happen to have the line slightly closer to civility, something of which I am very glad.
coldtea 13y ago
So, you're not free to speak. Because somebody else gets to decide what's "hate speech". Speaking against the aristocrats, back in the day, would also be regarded as "hate speech". Or speaking against class privilege, now. And of course, anybody talking against mass immigration (which, as a social phenomenon has a lot of downsides too), will easily be classified as "hate speaker" too.
- klearvue 13y ago
  "speaking against class privilege, now...", "anybody talking against mass immigration...will easily be classified as 'hate speaker' too" - please cite a single law of any European country classifying those as hate speech. Up until then I'll say you are spouting utter rubbish.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >please cite a single law of any European country classifying those as hate speech That's utterly naive, don't you think? They don't have to specifically classify those as hate speech. They just have to make the law vague enough -- and then the "offended parties", activists and other over-sensitive folks jump to take the opportunity. """In England, Wales, and Scotland, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says: A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if— (a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.""" Can it be any more vague? Here's an example of such laws in action: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7842344.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7842344.stm Would you be OK if Atheists couldn't talk against Christianism in the same way? >Up until then I'll say you are spouting utter rubbish. You can say anything you want -- however rude and ad hominen. I'm for free speech after all.
    - desas 13y ago