4 ms·
Labeling the opposing point to France's very strict defamation rules cannot be termed "ultra-liberal, privacy-be-damned" really. It has been pointed out that th
by Jun8 11y ago
Labeling the opposing point to France's very strict defamation rules cannot be termed "ultra-liberal, privacy-be-damned" really. It has been pointed out that this state of affairs has led to many criminal/politically harmful events to be widely known. One of the best known in recent memory was the DSK affair (http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/d-s-k-french-lives-french-laws http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/d-s-k-french-lives-f...). Although his rapist past was well-known is some circles through informal gossip, the victims were never able to declare so in public due to threat of these strict laws. More on this sordid affair here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/dominique-strauss-kahn-book-ban-court-rules_n_2768578.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/dominique-strauss-k...
Many more examples can be provided.
- vegabook 11y agoWhatever one thinks of DSK, no court, in either the US or France, has found him guilty. Yes he has paid compensation but there is no criminal charge that stuck. I'll further remind you that DSK was arrested, in traditional style (complaint is phoned in, police arrive), well before the internet got involved. Thus the idea that free-speech on the internet helped justice in this case is untrue.