France Shoot-Out

[a completely inoffensive name]

Having right for saying ANYTHING disregarding how much you may insult the others turns freedom into anarchy.

And this anarchy is exactly the only moral and indeed even the only pragmatic view to have in any multicultural society. To quote a smart French man:
"SINCE no man has a natural authority over his fellow, and force creates no right, we must conclude that conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority among men."

As a multicultural society, such conventions of what is "decent" or "libel" or "slander" or "offensive" can not be formed. It is impossible to have the Christian and the Jew and the Muslim and the Hindu to agree on what these terms are and codify it into law, UNLESS, one of these groups is strong enough to force their views through government policy at the expense (and resentment) of the minority. However, this force is not legitimate, only raw repression dressed up, just as Jim Crow could not be said to be morally legitimate even if the legality of such laws were solid.

This is why the UK and other European nations are so backwards (as viewed from the US) when it comes to free speech. The UK still holds onto its old conceptions of what is an "acceptable" expression of speech while at the same time allowing in immigrants who have radically different views that UK natives see as reprehensible without even considering the moral implications of their own blasphemy laws still on the books!

If things can not be said that might offend someone, obviously nothing ends up being said.

Then one has to take a decision on what is the "culture of the land" and base things on this arbitrary judgement - we allow cartoons of Prophets but not cartoons of child rape for example.

If everyone is part of the same culture, regardless of their ethnicity, then this shouldn't be too much of an issue. When this is not the case problems occur.

And here summed up wonderfully, is both the moral and pragmatic reason why European countries need to dial down their multicultural experiment if they do not wish to change fundamental outlooks on the relationship between the individual and society.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And this anarchy is exactly the only moral and indeed even the only pragmatic view to have in any multicultural society. To quote a smart French man:
"SINCE no man has a natural authority over his fellow, and force creates no right, we must conclude that conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority among men."

As a multicultural society, such conventions of what is "decent" or "libel" or "slander" or "offensive" can not be formed. It is impossible to have the Christian and the Jew and the Muslim and the Hindu to agree on what these terms are and codify it into law, UNLESS, one of these groups is strong enough to force their views through government policy at the expense (and resentment) of the minority. However, this force is not legitimate, only raw repression dressed up, just as Jim Crow could not be said to be morally legitimate even if the legality of such laws were solid.

I don't see restrictions on public distribution of grossly offensive material as repression, I see it as good governance and as a basic duty of the government - to protect minorities as well as reflect majority sensibilites. Otherwise, people would be subjected to the tyranny of the most vile and contemptuous individuals in society - imagine how a Muslim would feel walking down a city centre where every boulevard, poster and magazine cover shows shockingly blasphemous pictures of their religious leaders and racial characatures of Muslims that are about as sensitive as blackface (seriously, have you seen some of Charlie Hebdo's stuff?).

Alternatively, imagine how an atheist would feel if he had to walk down a city centre where on every corner there were preachers screaming "atheists will burn in hell, atheists are degenerate", etc. Even in a majority Christian/faith-based society, I would say it is the duty of the government to outlaw such behaviour.

To me, this is just about basic decency towards your fellow man.

And one final point, your idea of what divisions make a society multicultural is, like the very concepts of what is decent or offensive, entirely arbitrary and subjective. No society is monolithic, to take the example of the UK, around the time it developed free speech there were Catholics, Presbyterians, Anglicans, dissenters, deists, atheists, and even within these groupings, no doubt every individual had their own opinions. I am confident that even today when we now have Muslims, Hindus and others, we are quite capable of broadly agreeing on a basic standard of what constitutes deliberately offensive material.

This is why the UK and other European nations are so backwards (as viewed from the US) when it comes to free speech. The UK still holds onto its old conceptions of what is an "acceptable" expression of speech while at the same time allowing in immigrants who have radically different views that UK natives see as reprehensible without even considering the moral implications of their own blasphemy laws still on the books!

Isn't the fact that the USA has legally-recognized "free speech zones" kind of a recognition that otherwise, the USA does allow unrestricted free speech?

[Viking]

Otherwise, people would be subjected to the tyranny of the most vile and contemptuous individuals in society - imagine how a Muslim would feel walking down a city centre where every boulevard, poster and magazine cover shows shockingly blasphemous pictures of their religious leaders and racial characatures of Muslims that are about as sensitive as blackface (seriously, have you seen some of Charlie Hebdo's stuff?).

Alternatively, imagine how an atheist would feel if he had to walk down a city centre where on every corner there were preachers screaming "atheists will burn in hell, atheists are degenerate", etc. Even in a majority Christian/faith-based society, I would say it is the duty of the government to outlaw such behaviour.

Not so much about content as about intensity, prevalence, context and avenue. Compare this with what it means to 'harass' somebody.

[Leet Eriksson]

I don't see restrictions on public distribution of grossly offensive material as repression, I see it as good governance and as a basic duty of the government - to protect minorities as well as reflect majority sensibilites. Otherwise, people would be subjected to the tyranny of the most vile and contemptuous individuals in society - imagine how a Muslim would feel walking down a city centre where every boulevard, poster and magazine cover shows shockingly blasphemous pictures of their religious leaders and racial characatures of Muslims that are about as sensitive as blackface (seriously, have you seen some of Charlie Hebdo's stuff?

I'm Muslim, the problem isn't really the imagery, alot of people miss the fact they're using the racism as satire of racists, not really to be racist themselves. Its not even about reading on to it, look at the Taubira article where she is depicted as a monkey, with an FN motto of sorts being twisted, it wasn't mocking Taubira it was mocking FN, she also thanked them.

French humour is certainly something, but the CH magazines are not racist at all, they're anti-racist, and i think with french leftists they also uphold anti-clerical views, that about covers all beliefs.

Also the cover for their latest release is great, its basically a gigantic "Fuck You" to everyone.

[Brenus]

“I don't see restrictions on public distribution of grossly offensive material as repression” And who define what is offensive or not? I find offensive religious (some) stories. I find offensive the slaughter of individual depicted in the Bible, I find offensive the concept of the Land of War and the Land of Submission. I find offensive the basic inequality in each religion. But I don’t censure the Bible or the Koran. Believers in theses Faith have to deal with them, not me.
But I will not accept them to tell me what is moral or immoral, and certainly not the most obscurantists of them.
To be frank, I didn’t like Charlie Hebdo, or its predecessor Hara Kiri. I didn’t like the style of drawing, sometimes their sense of humour. No killer scum bag will force me to buy tomorrow one of them. That is my freedom of choice.
Now, I share with them the fight against obscurantism, against the belief of god, and/or others superstitions.
As I mentioned before, until the First Republic, it was grossly offensive to pretend that the Christ’s mother was not a virgin.
Some of you as Puritans do not believe in it. So do we have to send the Dragoons in your home until you convert to Catholicism, like Louis the XIV did? Or do we have to agree that: “the Liberty to every man to speak, write, print, and publish his opinions without having his writings subject to any censorship or inspection before their publication, and to worship as he pleases” followed by “The legislative power may not make any laws which infringe upon or obstruct the exercise of the natural and civil rights recorded in the present title and guaranteed by the Constitution; but, since liberty consists of being able to do only whatever is not injurious to the rights of others or to public security, the law may establish penalties for acts which, assailing either public security or the rights of others, might be injurious to society.” Note: The Law, not the decency, not others outlaw powers, the Laws, voted by a Parliament, not a group of self-promoted representatives of various groups or/and lobbies.

“imagine how a Muslim would feel walking down a city centre where every boulevard, poster and magazine cover shows shockingly blasphemous pictures of their religious leaders and racial characatures of Muslims that are about as sensitive as blackface (seriously, have you seen some of Charlie Hebdo's stuff?).” I don’t have to imagine when I know, as finally recognised by the Media, that France has the biggest Muslim (and Jewish) Community in Europe. So they are probably quite ok with it. Because the vast majority of them are atheists any way, as the vast of the others so-called confession are. They follow Ramadan as I follow X-mas, for the cakes and the celebration that follows (the arabs receipes for cakes are absolutely diet free: 1 kilogram each time you look at them).
And once again, France not being a Religious Country, we don’t have a State Religion, there is no blasphemous cartoon. The maximum is bad taste cartoons, but, hey, don’t look at them. If some are more shock by drawing that by the killing of 4 Jews just because they were Jews, well, I am really happy and hope they will suffer more in their feelings.

"atheists will burn in hell, atheists are degenerate" Well, I don’t give a damn as there is no hell. And even in the absurd hypothesis there is one, the idea to share a Paradise with this kind of lots… Prefer Hell, if you don’t mind, where the greatest minds, the hottest women and the funniest men are. Imagine sharing Rice Pudding with Mother Theresa with Harps (or Richard Clederman)music in the back-ground… Just the thought...
And opinion of idiots tends to make me laugh anyway. What really up-set me is when believers start to kill non-believers. Remind me Torquemada, don’t know why…

[Gilrandir]

we allow cartoons of Prophets but not cartoons of child rape for example.

Perhaps there are society where it is the other way around.

What, what? You make so many assumptions about what I believe, talk about putting words into my mouth.

That's the usual game of Master Brenus. Have been having it for half a year.

And this anarchy is exactly the only moral and indeed even the only pragmatic view to have in any multicultural society.

This is a sure way to chaos as people wil never know where to stop in there obsession not to limit the freedom of speech. Thus insulting vs not-insulting criterion is the one to gauge how free you should be in what you say.

As a multicultural society, such conventions of what is "decent" or "libel" or "slander" or "offensive" can not be formed. It is impossible to have the Christian and the Jew and the Muslim and the Hindu to agree on what these terms are and codify it into law.

People living in such societies are usually well aware of the sensitive issues they should be careful about. For example, when I came to the USA I was told (by the locals) that I shouldn't address or refer to young black males as "boy". So it is not about the law, but about the rules of being decent to the people you communicate with.

And who define what is offensive or not?
But I will not accept them to tell me what is moral or immoral, and certainly not the most obscurantists of them.

Offensive and immoral are two incomparable categories as they don't match completely. For example, a nude picture on a lamp-post is immoral, but not offensive.

“imagine how a Muslim would feel walking down a city centre where every boulevard, poster and magazine cover shows shockingly blasphemous pictures of their religious leaders and racial characatures of Muslims that are about as sensitive as blackface (seriously, have you seen some of Charlie Hebdo's stuff?).” I don’t have to imagine when I know, as finally recognised by the Media, that France has the biggest Muslim (and Jewish) Community in Europe. So they are probably quite ok with it.

You make an assumption without having asked them. How typical.

Prefer Hell, if you don’t mind, where the greatest minds, the hottest women and the funniest men are.

If there is the hell as you described it, then one certainly won't be allowed to do things you would like to do with funniest men and hottest women.


Generally speaking, if you feel so free to disregard the sensitive issues, be smart enough to take precautions against adverse consequences. Otherwise you a woman in a mini-skirt who goes out at 11 p.m. to have a walk about a dangerous neignborhood (can I say Harlem, or will it be offensive?)

[rory_20_uk]

Perhaps there are society where it is the other way around.

People living in such societies are usually well aware of the sensitive issues they should be careful about. For example, when I came to the USA I was told (by the locals) that I shouldn't address or refer to young black males as "boy". So it is not about the law, but about the rules of being decent to the people you communicate with.

On the first point perhaps there is. I am not bothered one way or the other as long as it is not the UK.

And the latter point is indeed the whole issue - if people tacitly abide by the common niceties of society then all is fine. Increasingly people don't want to do so - or bring very different cultural norms along with themselves rather than desiring assimilation or having very similar cultural norms.

[Husar]

And European politics continue to support freedom of speech.

France does it by defining what exactly freedom of speech means in the modern world and what you really shouldn't say:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...m-9976667.html

Anti-semitic French comedian Dieudonné was arrested after he seemingly compared himself to the terrorist who murdered four people at a kosher supermarket in Paris last week.

Dieudonné M’Bala M’bala, 48, who was being held for questioning at a Paris police station, could face possible charges of "apology for terrorism".

A true test for our standards or does the scumbag deserve to be punished for what he said?

And our friendly neighborhood Cameron thinks that speech should be truly freed by removing the shackles of encryption so that it is truly free to be read by the government:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ssaging-terror

“[I]n our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read?”, the prime minister asked rhetorically.

About time for the government to put microphones into our beds, though tooth implants might be more practicable.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

... Isn't the fact that the USA has legally-recognized "free speech zones" kind of a recognition that otherwise, the USA does allow unrestricted free speech?

I too find such zones annoying. The original goal was to have a designated location where protesters could protest without prior permit and without interfering with the proceedings. Mostly these zones have been established at Party conventions, at Economic summit conferences, and -- more permanently -- on college campuses. To me, the last is particularly galling since free exchange of ideas is the whole blinking point about college.

In general, the only requirement for free assembly in the USA is a permit. The permit mostly serves as advance notice so that the authorities can cordon off streets or otherwise see to the safety of the assembly. Denial of permits has been abused, but such denials are only generally accepted where the gathering is considered likely to result in violence.

In general, free speech is not restricted unless such speech would create a "clear and present danger" to the community thereby.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't see restrictions on public distribution of grossly offensive material as repression, I see it as good governance and as a basic duty of the government - to protect minorities as well as reflect majority sensibilites.

A. What is offensive? If I think a picture of the queen being pissed on is hilarious, why is my view disregarded and yours codified in law?
B. What good is the government doing by protecting the minority by policing what the majority say? Why do you think that will change the attitudes of the majority? Personally, if the US government had banned the n-word, the problem of tackling racism would have been exacerbated, because all those thoughts simply go underground and unchallenged in the public sphere. By allowing "shameful" or "offensive" material to be published you actually now have a mechanism of reaching the public by pointing to concrete examples of "this is wrong".

Otherwise, people would be subjected to the tyranny of the most vile and contemptuous individuals in society - imagine how a Muslim would feel walking down a city centre where every boulevard, poster and magazine cover shows shockingly blasphemous pictures of their religious leaders and racial characatures of Muslims that are about as sensitive as blackface (seriously, have you seen some of Charlie Hebdo's stuff?).

Might be somewhat similar to pro-choice people in present day US seeing aborted fetuses on billboards every 40 miles in the South (certain regions). People continue to go about their day. Every week a man stands on a soapbox at my Uni and tells me I am going to hell, I am not emotionally distressed.

Alternatively, imagine how an atheist would feel if he had to walk down a city centre where on every corner there were preachers screaming "atheists will burn in hell, atheists are degenerate", etc. Even in a majority Christian/faith-based society, I would say it is the duty of the government to outlaw such behaviour.

I have experienced that to a degree, and I don't want those sad men to be silenced. I want them to continue saying what they want, and I want to continue ignoring them.

To me, this is just about basic decency towards your fellow man.

It is more decent to let an individual say what he wants and let him deal accordingly with the consequences of his actions than to "save" others by making sure he knows what is proper to say and what isn't.

And one final point, your idea of what divisions make a society multicultural is, like the very concepts of what is decent or offensive, entirely arbitrary and subjective. No society is monolithic, to take the example of the UK, around the time it developed free speech there were Catholics, Presbyterians, Anglicans, dissenters, deists, atheists, and even within these groupings, no doubt every individual had their own opinions. I am confident that even today when we now have Muslims, Hindus and others, we are quite capable of broadly agreeing on a basic standard of what constitutes deliberately offensive material.

The UK suffered many internal conflicts and civil wars because of the differences between Protestants and Catholics. Free speech arose because it was the solution to having cohabitation. The more liberal the laws regarding speech became, the more peaceful the divisions became. Now we are at a point where two random strangers, one Catholic and one Protestant can simply agree to disagree and have a pint together. The solution is not to maintain restrictive laws but to make them even more free.

Isn't the fact that the USA has legally-recognized "free speech zones" kind of a recognition that otherwise, the USA does allow unrestricted free speech?

Seamus answered this pretty well. Even if there is a hypocrisy in what I say versus what my country does, I would say that US laws could and should become even more liberal. There is nothing more blatantly subjective than the phrase "I know it when I see it." And yet, this is the standard on what constitutes art vs pornography. This should be exposed for what it is, and dismantled.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Wow, just a day after championing the right of a person to say whatever they want, suddenly Brenus is happy to see a man arrested for uttering the words "Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly." That hypocrisy says it all for me.

A. What is offensive? If I think a picture of the queen being pissed on is hilarious, why is my view disregarded and yours codified in law?

Because the Queen is a widely popular and respected figure of national unity, whose position as monarch and head of state is codified in the UK's foundational documents.

B. What good is the government doing by protecting the minority by policing what the majority say? Why do you think that will change the attitudes of the majority? Personally, if the US government had banned the n-word, the problem of tackling racism would have been exacerbated, because all those thoughts simply go underground and unchallenged in the public sphere. By allowing "shameful" or "offensive" material to be published you actually now have a mechanism of reaching the public by pointing to concrete examples of "this is wrong".

It has nothing to do with changing attitudes, it is purely about allowing people to go about their lives peaceably. Also, although the idea that banning beliefs/behaviours merely pushes them underground and allows them to go unchallenged is often bandied about, its simply wrong. One case in point - the de-nazification of Germany, where heavy handed censorship worked in forcing a dramatic cultural change and successfully annihilated Nazi beliefs in the country.

Might be somewhat similar to pro-choice people in present day US seeing aborted fetuses on billboards every 40 miles in the South (certain regions). People continue to go about their day.

I don't think those billboard are acceptable, especially not in a public place where children will see them - so at least I'm consistent in my principles.

Every week a man stands on a soapbox at my Uni and tells me I am going to hell, I am not emotionally distressed.

I have experienced that to a degree, and I don't want those sad men to be silenced. I want them to continue saying what they want, and I want to continue ignoring them.

But your feelings are not representative of everybody else's. Most people, even in the Western world, would agree that there are certain contexts for certain material when freedom of speech should be restricted and are not comfortable with being exposed to the bile that is spouted from people from all walks of life.

It is more decent to let an individual say what he wants and let him deal accordingly with the consequences of his actions than to "save" others by making sure he knows what is proper to say and what isn't.

That depends on the context. For political rallies etc, sure I agree to an extent. But I don't think things should ever be allowed to get to the point where people are routinely harassed and perturbed by hateful, vile or obscene expressions, whether words or images.

The UK suffered many internal conflicts and civil wars because of the differences between Protestants and Catholics. Free speech arose because it was the solution to having cohabitation. The more liberal the laws regarding speech became, the more peaceful the divisions became. Now we are at a point where two random strangers, one Catholic and one Protestant can simply agree to disagree and have a pint together. The solution is not to maintain restrictive laws but to make them even more free.

This is pure revisionism - it is wishful thinking to think that what we regard as politically liberating measures had purely, or even primarily positive effects. To run with the UK example - the expansion of the franchise to ordinary burghers in Scotland after the 1690 Revolution meant that the more tolerant Royalist politicians were replaced by aggressive, populist Presbyterian firebrands that ushered in a wave of witch-hunts and anti-Catholic measures. You might try and argue that it works in the long-term, but that's impossible to judge when things are blurred by so many other factors.

Seamus answered this pretty well. Even if there is a hypocrisy in what I say versus what my country does, I would say that US laws could and should become even more liberal. There is nothing more blatantly subjective than the phrase "I know it when I see it." And yet, this is the standard on what constitutes art vs pornography. This should be exposed for what it is, and dismantled.

My problem is that a very ideologically-driven core are pushing this radical libertarian-esque approach to free speech and government intervention as if it is somehow the 'true' Western, Enlightened approach. The truth is that free speech was originally concerned with basic political and religious expression, and was regarded as an entirely separate matter from laws regarding obscenities and other things that these modern radicals are trying to normalize.

[Brenus]

“That hypocrisy says it all for me.” You’re right. Your hypocrisy is to all to see. You told us you were against the killings, but you have nothing against celebrating a man who killed 4 Jews… Congratulation, you reach a new level in whatever. By the way, where is the satire in a celebration of a killer? Tell me I am anxious to know…

“That's what the articles say he was arrested for”: Koulibali is the scum bag who killed 4 Jews because they were Jews. Yeah, nice joke, isn’t it, make me laugh…

“arrest people for speaking their mind?” I am sorry to tell you that to think it is find to kill people because their religion (Jews) is not allowed in France. I am sorry to tell you that it is not allowed to call to murder others, and it is not considered as an opinion. You might disagree and find perfectly ok to appeal to kill, well, I don’t, and France laws do the same.

I find shameful to put in parallel drawing cartoons and the celebration of the killing of people. Well, it tells a lot a suppose.

“So because of France's totally unique history of the evils of catholicism from really long ago, all religions should be excluded from free speech in modern France?” Do not reverse the problematic. The victims here are not the religious, but the atheists killed by obscurantist religious scam bags. The obscurantists are hurt in their feelings, poor things, the atheists are dead. The freedom of speech is for all religions, and none attacked their freedom to speak. What is actually under attack is their freedom to kill others under various pretexts.

[Fragony]

I am with the Scot, I wouldn't call an ambulance for him, but prosecuting him is just off.

[Rhyfelwyr]

“That hypocrisy says it all for me.” You’re right. Your hypocrisy is to all to see. You told us you were against the killings, but you have nothing against celebrating a man who killed 4 Jews… Congratulation, you reach a new level in whatever. By the way, where is the satire in celebration a killer? Tell me an anxious to know…

What he said had nothing to do with celebrating killings, at least it didn't look like it to me. That is just your interpretation of what he said. But in your mind, it seems that your interpretations are grounds enough for arresting people.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ach don't tell me even I'm going to start warming to Pope Francis:

Pope says free speech has limits and threatens to punch assisstant

[Husar]

“arrest people for speaking their mind?” I am sorry to tell you that to think it is find to kill people because their religion (Jews) is not allowed in France. I am sorry to tell you that it is not allowed to call to murder others, and it is not considered as an opinion. You might disagree and find perfectly ok to appeal to kill, well, I don’t, and France laws do the same.

I find shameful to put in parallel drawing cartoons and the celebration of the killing of people. Well, it tells a lot a suppose.

There is no need for you to be sorry, I just don't see where he glorified the killings. He made a really bad joke, yes, but it's not a glorification. I wasn't "putting anything in parallel", I was asking how far freedom of speech should go. And saying that if this sort of bad joke gets you arrested now, it seems quite restricted in France, considering they all have a happy parade about how much freedom of speech they want.

[Montmorency]

Both Rhy and Brenus seem to be wrong.

Promulgating hate or ridicule is not equivalent to promulgating violence, and even then it's an open question of whether such should be tolerated.

A relevant example may be the infamous Tosh "rape joke":

Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl [referring to an audience member who “heckled” him about rape jokes not being funny earlier in his set] got raped by, like, five guys right now? Like right now?

Without exploring the many aspects of this "joke" that make it unfunny, let's acknowledge that it cannot reasonably be prosecuted under any law not explicitly associated with "obscenity". Indeed, that is as it should be.

TBH every single proposed or existing restriction or qualification to speech rights that I've ever seen has been wholly arbitrary. Stop being hypocrites about free speech, and I mean "hypocrite" in the original sense of "liar".

[a completely inoffensive name]

Because the Queen is a widely popular and respected figure of national unity, whose position as monarch and head of state is codified in the UK's foundational documents.

So if the Queen was not popular and respected, then it would be ok to disrespect her? Uhhhhhh Congress, the President and the Supreme Court are codified in our foundational documents, we still respect the position while openly mocking the humans occupying those positions.

It has nothing to do with changing attitudes, it is purely about allowing people to go about their lives peaceably. Also, although the idea that banning beliefs/behaviours merely pushes them underground and allows them to go unchallenged is often bandied about, its simply wrong. One case in point - the de-nazification of Germany, where heavy handed censorship worked in forcing a dramatic cultural change and successfully annihilated Nazi beliefs in the country.

Words are not violence. You may as well lock people up 5 years for throwing a loud house party. The de-nazification of Germany is a terrible example. They did not stop being nazi's because the Swastika was banned. The Nuremberg Trial and subsequent Israeli commandos systematically killed all upper echelons of the Nazi Party. Then the allied forces forcefully showed the German public the atrocities of the Holocaust by taking them to the camps and having them dig graves for the dead. Then what probably helped the most in de-nazification was the successful rebuilding of Germany post WW2 due to the Marshal Plan, since the conditions of the genesis of the Nazi Party were rampant poverty and a crippled economy.

I don't think those billboard are acceptable, especially not in a public place where children will see them - so at least I'm consistent in my principles.

That's why I respect you.

But your feelings are not representative of everybody else's. Most people, even in the Western world, would agree that there are certain contexts for certain material when freedom of speech should be restricted and are not comfortable with being exposed to the bile that is spouted from people from all walks of life.

No one's feelings are representative of everybody else's, thats my point. So why are we pretending that the ones who wish for restrictions are the true representatives that should have their viewed codified?

That depends on the context. For political rallies etc, sure I agree to an extent. But I don't think things should ever be allowed to get to the point where people are routinely harassed and perturbed by hateful, vile or obscene expressions, whether words or images.

You are asking humans to not be human. Again, maybe if you had a very homogeneous culture it could happen. But look at what's happening in Scandinavia, as Kad will certainly open his mouth about it.

This is pure revisionism - it is wishful thinking to think that what we regard as politically liberating measures had purely, or even primarily positive effects. To run with the UK example - the expansion of the franchise to ordinary burghers in Scotland after the 1690 Revolution meant that the more tolerant Royalist politicians were replaced by aggressive, populist Presbyterian firebrands that ushered in a wave of witch-hunts and anti-Catholic measures. You might try and argue that it works in the long-term, but that's impossible to judge when things are blurred by so many other factors.

So the right thing to do would have been to deny the burghers the right to have representation, the right to vote?

My problem is that a very ideologically-driven core are pushing this radical libertarian-esque approach to free speech and government intervention as if it is somehow the 'true' Western, Enlightened approach. The truth is that free speech was originally concerned with basic political and religious expression, and was regarded as an entirely separate matter from laws regarding obscenities and other things that these modern radicals are trying to normalize.

I don't agree with that at all. Taking an example from US history, the election of 1800 between Adams and Jefferson was very vitriolic. Jefferson was a negro-lover and Adams was a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." For the most part, early American politicians were content with allowing this since they considered it under the sphere of freedom of the press, they did not have the narrow view of free speech you are suggesting.

[Brenus]

“But qualifying this particular statement as glorifying or condoning murder sounds like stretch...” Not according to the French Laws. If you identify yourself with a racist who just killed 4 persons because they belong to a particular religion, you are a racist who glorify murder. Again, nobody answer the question: Explain the joke. I would be happy to have a laugh, so please where is the joke, the satire?

“I just don't see where he glorified the killings” Really? You don’t? Hooray for the hero who killed 4 Jews, I am him, and you don’t see? Perhaps you can ask Cabu, or Wolinsky? Oh, sorry, there are dead.

“Promulgating hate or ridicule is not equivalent to promulgating violence” Agree. The “comedian” is promoting hate and violence. And it is still forbidden in the French Law to promote violence. You just cannot tell to go to kill others, or glorify the one who did.

[Fragony]

Two returnees who wanted to behead a police official were killed. Is it so hard, take of their nationality and kick them out. Marocco and Algeria are all to happy to make them dissapear.

edit: also arrests in Germany

It isn't like I haven't understood this for years, bigot me. I hate it when I am right.

[Viking]

TBH every single proposed or existing restriction or qualification to speech rights that I've ever seen has been wholly arbitrary. Stop being hypocrites about free speech, and I mean "hypocrite" in the original sense of "liar".

Arbitrary in what sense?

“But qualifying this particular statement as glorifying or condoning murder sounds like stretch...” Not according to the French Laws. If you identify yourself with a racist who just killed 4 persons because they belong to a particular religion, you are a racist who glorify murder. Again, nobody answer the question: Explain the joke. I would be happy to have a laugh, so please where is the joke, the satire?

Unless he has condoned murder prior to this, you are just projecting your own views of him onto him.

[Rhyfelwyr]

So if the Queen was not popular and respected, then it would be ok to disrespect her? Uhhhhhh Congress, the President and the Supreme Court are codified in our foundational documents, we still respect the position while openly mocking the humans occupying those positions.

The laws should consider A) the position of the person/institution and B) the public attitude towards them, as well as any sensitivities around customs, tradition etc.

Words are not violence. You may as well lock people up 5 years for throwing a loud house party. The de-nazification of Germany is a terrible example. They did not stop being nazi's because the Swastika was banned. The Nuremberg Trial and subsequent Israeli commandos systematically killed all upper echelons of the Nazi Party. Then the allied forces forcefully showed the German public the atrocities of the Holocaust by taking them to the camps and having them dig graves for the dead. Then what probably helped the most in de-nazification was the successful rebuilding of Germany post WW2 due to the Marshal Plan, since the conditions of the genesis of the Nazi Party were rampant poverty and a crippled economy.

We'll probably get bogged down if we start debating particular examples. I just think it is wishful thinking to say that free speech is totally positive and that censorship can never have positive effects. Advocating for total free speech because you believe it is right in principle, and advocating for it because you believe that it is the best way to counter extreme/anti-social beliefs are two different positions, yet they often get blurred. I think many people who believe at heart in the former can sometimes lazily go along with the perceived wisdom of the latter, perhaps because of the human tendency towards idealism. I believe in free speech in principle, but I also think that censorship can be pretty effective in practise.

No one's feelings are representative of everybody else's, thats my point. So why are we pretending that the ones who wish for restrictions are the true representatives that should have their viewed codified?

Historically speaking at least, a desire for some forms of restriction have been held by the overwhelming majority. I think this still holds true today - finding a balance between majority wishes and individual rights is what liberal democracy is all about.

You are asking humans to not be human. Again, maybe if you had a very homogeneous culture it could happen. But look at what's happening in Scandinavia, as Kad will certainly open his mouth about it.

I would hardly say that censoring extreme or offensive material has anything to do with asking people not to by human. They can think and feel what they like, while occasionally behind restricted in their outward actions - that is part and parcel of living in human society!

So the right thing to do would have been to deny the burghers the right to have representation, the right to vote?

That depends on whether or not it would have an overall positive effect. I don't view the right to vote as some sort of natural right, I just see it as a generally nice thing to have and something that allows for good governance. If there were circumstances when it would be detrimental to society, then away with it!

I don't agree with that at all. Taking an example from US history, the election of 1800 between Adams and Jefferson was very vitriolic. Jefferson was a negro-lover and Adams was a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." For the most part, early American politicians were content with allowing this since they considered it under the sphere of freedom of the press, they did not have the narrow view of free speech you are suggesting.

Let society come to an consensus about what is acceptable. If they cannot, they must reach an agreement as best they can, and obey the law that upholds it. I know that a lot of things that pass for acceptable today would never have been tolerated by many of your founding fathers. They were a diverse bunch and upheld arrangements that you would think are incredibly oppressive - eg a number of state-level established churches, and the censorship and discrimination that went along with that. Yet it was deemed constitutional at the time.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The laws should consider A) the position of the person/institution and B) the public attitude towards them, as well as any sensitivities around customs, tradition etc.

Thinking about this for a while, what you said initially made no sense. But maybe this is a difference between how Americans and Britons (I don't actually know the plural for UK citizens, Britons seems too specific to Great Britain) view government positions. The position and the person holding that position are completely different entities (from my view). That's why I have no problem with anyone openly mocking the President, because they are mocking the person, not the individual. Are you coming from an approach that the Queen (aka the monarchy) and the woman who is called The Queen are effectively the same? Then I could understand your point about customs and sensitivity.

We'll probably get bogged down if we start debating particular examples. I just think it is wishful thinking to say that free speech is totally positive and that censorship can never have positive effects. Advocating for total free speech because you believe it is right in principle, and advocating for it because you believe that it is the best way to counter extreme/anti-social beliefs are two different positions, yet they often get blurred. I think many people who believe at heart in the former can sometimes lazily go along with the perceived wisdom of the latter, perhaps because of the human tendency towards idealism. I believe in free speech in principle, but I also think that censorship can be pretty effective in practice.

I can't disagree that censorship can be effective. But I really do disagree with the notion that censorship is effective towards moderating opinions in the public sphere. Censorship and the restriction of free speech is perfectly applicable and effective when regarding things like national security, when the flow of information needs to be restricted. However, I don't think you can say the same regarding the flow of opinions. I just think that you are conflating the two and that the limits on free speech need to be varied for the various types of speech there are.

Historically speaking at least, a desire for some forms of restriction have been held by the overwhelming majority. I think this still holds true today - finding a balance between majority wishes and individual rights is what liberal democracy is all about.

Historically speaking (until the mid-1800s), a desire for slavery has been held by the overwhelming majority. No, I am not being glib, I don't think we can use public opinion and masquerade it with the authority of history to give it credence. A liberal democracy is about majority wishes except when individual rights are infringed. There is no "balance" one is subservient to the other.

I would hardly say that censoring extreme or offensive material has anything to do with asking people not to by human. They can think and feel what they like, while occasionally behind restricted in their outward actions - that is part and parcel of living in human society!

Humans like sex, humans like violence, humans like to insult those they disagree with. Trying to eliminate representations of these things in society seems to be asking people to pretend as if we are not human. I find it part and parcel of living in human society to hear the neighbors in the apt next to me having loud sex. That's what humans do.

That depends on whether or not it would have an overall positive effect. I don't view the right to vote as some sort of natural right, I just see it as a generally nice thing to have and something that allows for good governance. If there were circumstances when it would be detrimental to society, then away with it!

But that is clearly immoral. I didn't peg you for a utilitarian Rhy. You are so cavalier about rights which people to this day suffer because the lack the ability to exercise it. This argument is the justification of so much oppression. Can't give women the vote, we would start to have politicians elected based on hormones!

Let society come to an consensus about what is acceptable. If they cannot, they must reach an agreement as best they can, and obey the law that upholds it. I know that a lot of things that pass for acceptable today would never have been tolerated by many of your founding fathers. They were a diverse bunch and upheld arrangements that you would think are incredibly oppressive - eg a number of state-level established churches, and the censorship and discrimination that went along with that. Yet it was deemed constitutional at the time.

Yes, but we nowadays consider that an error on their part, not simply justification that human rights are frivolous things.