11 ms·

As a french, I'm quite surprised about what you are saying for France. We have a lot of satirical newspapers, TV shows, etc. Where have you seen that?

by louhike 13y ago

davidnu 13y ago
What about that French comedian that has your government exploring ways to ban his act? his material maybe reprehensible but in the US he'd have first amendment protection. Your country also has draconian and stringent liable laws, and I don't want it to have anything to do with Internet governance.
- mercurial 13y ago
  > What about that French comedian that has your government exploring ways to ban his act? Well, what about him? France is not the US, you have hate laws here. Nobody is trying to ban him because he is criticizing the government. That's not parent is saying anyway: Perhaps they'll uses the French model and make it illegal to say anything critical about the French government. Last time I checked, the Figaro and le Point (conservative newspapers) were alive and well.
  - davidnu2 13y ago
    Exactly right, the problem is that you're not the US. "Hate laws" are censorship. "Hateful" speech is equally protected under the US constitution, and any political movements it might inspire will not be infringed upon by the government. The fundamental problem with "hate laws" in the context of speech is the definition of "hate", totalitarian governments tend to widen that definitions in order to suppress adversaries, this might be theoretical in your case but it's still an attack victor. The Internet must be built on the example of the "freest" framework available and that is the US's.
    - mercurial 13y ago
      > Exactly right, the problem is that you're not the US. Exactly right about what? The original claim is that the French government is trying to muzzle criticism. You then bring up the case of a humorist condemned for his antisemitic views as a supporting example. This doesn't make any sense, unless you're going for some weird conspiracy theory - in which case, I'll believe any conspiracy theory as long as comes with convincing evidence, of which there doesn't seem to be any. > The fundamental problem with "hate laws" in the context of speech is the definition of "hate", totalitarian governments tend to widen that definitions in order to suppress adversaries, this might be theoretical in your case but it's still an attack victor. > The Internet must be built on the example of the "freest" framework available and that is the US's. I'm on the fence about it. Besides, even in the US there are limits on freedom of speech.
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      >widen that definitions in order to suppress adversaries Billionaire Compares Outrage Over Rich In SF To Kristallnacht http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/01/26/266685819/billionaire-compares-outrage-over-rich-in-s-f-to-kristallnacht http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/01/26/266685... JPMorgan Chase's Jamie Dimon: Anti-Banking Sentiment 'A Form Of Discrimination' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/jamie-dimon-discrimination_n_1232323.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/jamie-dimon-discrim...
- agumonkey 13y ago
  Don't mind this story. It is 10% social pacification[1] and 90% hopeless PR stunt conflating many issues into one for they're barely capable of managing anything else. If they ever spend time on low-hanging things like this they will create more pain for themselves. [1] there were many people diverting his 'jokes' into offensive acts, not by his call but he kept the heater on when asked to tame it down.
- kubiiii 13y ago
  He'd be somewhat protected, but most certainely under heavy surveillance and most probably on a no fly list because of his friendship with Iran.
patrickaljord 13y ago
I'm French and I agree with him. There's no freedom of speech in France or at least it's seriously limited. It's easy to accuse anyone of hate speech for example and get him banned and fined. There's also offenses against the president and not to forget journalists getting mysteriously fired all the time because they were a bit too critical of the government. France is also the biggest censor of tweets http://www.numerama.com/magazine/28312-la-france-fait-exploser-la-demande-de-censure-sur-twitter.html http://www.numerama.com/magazine/28312-la-france-fait-explos...
- mercurial 13y ago
  > It's easy to accuse anyone of hate speech for example and get him banned and fined. Are you trying to say that laws against hate speech are a bad thing, or that they are abused in France? If they are abused in France, I'd appreciate relevant examples. Not Dieudonné, as this unfortunate character has made his bread and butter of antisemitism the last few years. > There's also offenses against the president Fair enough. I'd like to point out, though, that the last person to be condemned for "offense to the head of state" had to pay 30 euros after insulting Nicolas Sarkozy. That's not exactly financial ruin, but I'd like this law to go away entirely. > journalists getting mysteriously fired all the time because they were a bit too critical of the government. Which ones in particular?
  - Zancarius 13y ago
    > Are you trying to say that laws against hate speech are a bad thing, or that they are abused in France? I may regret this, but I'll step out on a limb and say yes. I know nothing of French politics, but I think hate speech laws are counter to the notion of free speech. Either you allow all speech or you allow none. Obviously, France may lack the protections citizens of other countries enjoy, and perhaps supporting such limits on free speech then becomes a matter of personal pride, making it a rather contentious issue. Hate speech laws are almost Orwellian in a sense: Free speech is good, but some speech is baaaaaaad. In my opinion, free speech is lost the instant you start eroding it with heinous laws that limit it. Here in the US at least, anti-hate speech proponents tend to use the "fire in a crowded theater" argument time and again as proof of limits on free speech rights, in spite that it's out of context and incorrect [1]. The other problem is that everyone generally agrees that free speech is fine, but there's a certain disagreement on what parts of speech should be considered taboo or outright illegal. The question then, in my mind, isn't whether or not governments should ban certain types of speech. I don't think they should, because it's counter to free speech protections. However, the messier question is whether social sanctions should be imposed upon citizens by non-government actors whenever hateful or potentially offensive speech is used. For instance, should an employer be allowed to fire someone because of public racist remarks? What if that employer is the government? What if the remarks were offensive to the government (think anti-war)? The point to free speech (generally, at least in the US) is that it enables one to say what they wish without government intervention. It doesn't, however, protect them from consequences of their speech imposed against them by other citizens (boycotts, firing, etc.). [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time...
valarauca1 13y ago
The French Government had videos of Police officers mocking minorities removed from various news organizations. Law for Trust in the Digital Economy (LCEN) Article 18 grants the French Government the ability to remove any content that may destabilize the public, hurt nation defense, or physically harm persons. That being said currently France is ranked #6 out of all nations in terms of Internet Freedom, due to internet policing while being possible rarely exercised.
- bausson 13y ago
  >> The French Government had videos of Police officers mocking minorities removed from various news organizations. Well, in almost every country, police force recruit among the least brilliant. Hatred of differences is what stupid people do. Violence is what stupid people do when given power to do so (intelligent people handed power preferring control over violence). So no big surprise here when it come to police. The government point is more worrying, but I don't remember any incident of that kind under current government.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    The French Government had videos [of Police officers mocking minorities] removed from various news organizations. The italics show the important part in this context, which is not the behavior of the police.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
weddpros 13y ago
You can read (in french: http://hollande-demission.fr/ http://hollande-demission.fr/) how the government BURNT protesters' banner... and other similar illegal actions, like taking "stealing" their car with no legal ground (they pretend "Hollande démission" is an ad) This group calls for the dismissal (démission) of president Hollande.
- mercurial 13y ago
  Sounds like a perfectly balanced source of information.
  - weddpros 13y ago
    That's how you can tell if newspapers are objective or not: you don't hear much about him in "balanced sources of information"... and you definitely don't hear about his banner or car. He has complained in court against these actions... We'll see how it goes. In the meantime, you can watch his videos, and see the cops take his car (quite objective and balanced source of information :-)
    - mercurial 13y ago
      > That's how you can tell if newspapers are objective or not: you don't hear much about him in "balanced sources of information"... and you definitely don't hear about his banner or car. I don't have French TV here (or French newspapers) but judging from the little I can find on the Internet about this character, I'm not convinced much of his activities is particularly newsworthy.
valtih1978 13y ago
Learn what "manufacturing consent" and mind control is, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44. The fact that people speak about funny stories about their president as a proof freedom of speech just proves that they have no idea what does it mean.

As a french, I'm quite surprised about what you are saying for France. We have a lot of satirical newspapers, TV shows, etc. Where have you seen that?

by louhike 13y ago

As a french, I'm quite surprised about what you are saying for France. We have a lot of satirical newspapers, TV shows, etc. Where have you seen that?

davidnu 13y ago

What about that French comedian that has your government exploring ways to ban his act? his material maybe reprehensible but in the US he'd have first amendment protection. Your country also has draconian and stringent liable laws, and I don't want it to have anything to do with Internet governance.

mercurial 13y ago
> What about that French comedian that has your government exploring ways to ban his act? Well, what about him? France is not the US, you have hate laws here. Nobody is trying to ban him because he is criticizing the government. That's not parent is saying anyway: Perhaps they'll uses the French model and make it illegal to say anything critical about the French government. Last time I checked, the Figaro and le Point (conservative newspapers) were alive and well.
- davidnu2 13y ago
  Exactly right, the problem is that you're not the US. "Hate laws" are censorship. "Hateful" speech is equally protected under the US constitution, and any political movements it might inspire will not be infringed upon by the government. The fundamental problem with "hate laws" in the context of speech is the definition of "hate", totalitarian governments tend to widen that definitions in order to suppress adversaries, this might be theoretical in your case but it's still an attack victor. The Internet must be built on the example of the "freest" framework available and that is the US's.
  - mercurial 13y ago
    > Exactly right, the problem is that you're not the US. Exactly right about what? The original claim is that the French government is trying to muzzle criticism. You then bring up the case of a humorist condemned for his antisemitic views as a supporting example. This doesn't make any sense, unless you're going for some weird conspiracy theory - in which case, I'll believe any conspiracy theory as long as comes with convincing evidence, of which there doesn't seem to be any. > The fundamental problem with "hate laws" in the context of speech is the definition of "hate", totalitarian governments tend to widen that definitions in order to suppress adversaries, this might be theoretical in your case but it's still an attack victor. > The Internet must be built on the example of the "freest" framework available and that is the US's. I'm on the fence about it. Besides, even in the US there are limits on freedom of speech.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    >widen that definitions in order to suppress adversaries Billionaire Compares Outrage Over Rich In SF To Kristallnacht http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/01/26/266685819/billionaire-compares-outrage-over-rich-in-s-f-to-kristallnacht http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/01/26/266685... JPMorgan Chase's Jamie Dimon: Anti-Banking Sentiment 'A Form Of Discrimination' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/jamie-dimon-discrimination_n_1232323.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/jamie-dimon-discrim...
agumonkey 13y ago
Don't mind this story. It is 10% social pacification[1] and 90% hopeless PR stunt conflating many issues into one for they're barely capable of managing anything else. If they ever spend time on low-hanging things like this they will create more pain for themselves. [1] there were many people diverting his 'jokes' into offensive acts, not by his call but he kept the heater on when asked to tame it down.
kubiiii 13y ago
He'd be somewhat protected, but most certainely under heavy surveillance and most probably on a no fly list because of his friendship with Iran.

patrickaljord 13y ago

I'm French and I agree with him. There's no freedom of speech in France or at least it's seriously limited. It's easy to accuse anyone of hate speech for example and get him banned and fined. There's also offenses against the president and not to forget journalists getting mysteriously fired all the time because they were a bit too critical of the government. France is also the biggest censor of tweets http://www.numerama.com/magazine/28312-la-france-fait-exploser-la-demande-de-censure-sur-twitter.html http://www.numerama.com/magazine/28312-la-france-fait-explos...

mercurial 13y ago
> It's easy to accuse anyone of hate speech for example and get him banned and fined. Are you trying to say that laws against hate speech are a bad thing, or that they are abused in France? If they are abused in France, I'd appreciate relevant examples. Not Dieudonné, as this unfortunate character has made his bread and butter of antisemitism the last few years. > There's also offenses against the president Fair enough. I'd like to point out, though, that the last person to be condemned for "offense to the head of state" had to pay 30 euros after insulting Nicolas Sarkozy. That's not exactly financial ruin, but I'd like this law to go away entirely. > journalists getting mysteriously fired all the time because they were a bit too critical of the government. Which ones in particular?
- Zancarius 13y ago
  > Are you trying to say that laws against hate speech are a bad thing, or that they are abused in France? I may regret this, but I'll step out on a limb and say yes. I know nothing of French politics, but I think hate speech laws are counter to the notion of free speech. Either you allow all speech or you allow none. Obviously, France may lack the protections citizens of other countries enjoy, and perhaps supporting such limits on free speech then becomes a matter of personal pride, making it a rather contentious issue. Hate speech laws are almost Orwellian in a sense: Free speech is good, but some speech is baaaaaaad. In my opinion, free speech is lost the instant you start eroding it with heinous laws that limit it. Here in the US at least, anti-hate speech proponents tend to use the "fire in a crowded theater" argument time and again as proof of limits on free speech rights, in spite that it's out of context and incorrect [1]. The other problem is that everyone generally agrees that free speech is fine, but there's a certain disagreement on what parts of speech should be considered taboo or outright illegal. The question then, in my mind, isn't whether or not governments should ban certain types of speech. I don't think they should, because it's counter to free speech protections. However, the messier question is whether social sanctions should be imposed upon citizens by non-government actors whenever hateful or potentially offensive speech is used. For instance, should an employer be allowed to fire someone because of public racist remarks? What if that employer is the government? What if the remarks were offensive to the government (think anti-war)? The point to free speech (generally, at least in the US) is that it enables one to say what they wish without government intervention. It doesn't, however, protect them from consequences of their speech imposed against them by other citizens (boycotts, firing, etc.). [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time...

valarauca1 13y ago

The French Government had videos of Police officers mocking minorities removed from various news organizations. Law for Trust in the Digital Economy (LCEN) Article 18 grants the French Government the ability to remove any content that may destabilize the public, hurt nation defense, or physically harm persons. That being said currently France is ranked #6 out of all nations in terms of Internet Freedom, due to internet policing while being possible rarely exercised.

bausson 13y ago
>> The French Government had videos of Police officers mocking minorities removed from various news organizations. Well, in almost every country, police force recruit among the least brilliant. Hatred of differences is what stupid people do. Violence is what stupid people do when given power to do so (intelligent people handed power preferring control over violence). So no big surprise here when it come to police. The government point is more worrying, but I don't remember any incident of that kind under current government.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  The French Government had videos [of Police officers mocking minorities] removed from various news organizations. The italics show the important part in this context, which is not the behavior of the police.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

weddpros 13y ago

You can read (in french: http://hollande-demission.fr/ http://hollande-demission.fr/) how the government BURNT protesters' banner... and other similar illegal actions, like taking "stealing" their car with no legal ground (they pretend "Hollande démission" is an ad) This group calls for the dismissal (démission) of president Hollande.

mercurial 13y ago
Sounds like a perfectly balanced source of information.
- weddpros 13y ago
  That's how you can tell if newspapers are objective or not: you don't hear much about him in "balanced sources of information"... and you definitely don't hear about his banner or car. He has complained in court against these actions... We'll see how it goes. In the meantime, you can watch his videos, and see the cops take his car (quite objective and balanced source of information :-)
  - mercurial 13y ago
    > That's how you can tell if newspapers are objective or not: you don't hear much about him in "balanced sources of information"... and you definitely don't hear about his banner or car. I don't have French TV here (or French newspapers) but judging from the little I can find on the Internet about this character, I'm not convinced much of his activities is particularly newsworthy.

valtih1978 13y ago

Learn what "manufacturing consent" and mind control is, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44. The fact that people speak about funny stories about their president as a proof freedom of speech just proves that they have no idea what does it mean.