France Shoot-Out

[Brenus]

"You make an assumption without having asked them." No need to ask, just to live with "Muslims" is enough, to go partying with them, to chat-up the girls in University. You ignore reality. As usual.

"That's the usual game of Master Brenus. Have been having it for half a year." And as in your case perfectly accurate in doing so as he wrote "and I think that to do so would be morally wrong" speaking of mocking religions. Not my fault, in his case or yours, it is what you and him wrote, don't blame me.

"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?)" Remind me somebody, during other debate, telling it is not nice to blame the victim of an aggression... Ah, yes, it was you... Can you, at least, be consistent? Well, every one is allowed to change his/her mind, true...

"A true test for our standards or does the scumbag deserve to be punished for what he said?" Well, it is against the law to support Criminal Activities and to be racist. It is against the Constitution and the Common Laws. So, what will be the test?

[Husar]

"A true test for our standards or does the scumbag deserve to be punished for what he said?" Well, it is against the law to support Criminal Activities and to be racist. It is against the Constitution and the Common Laws. So, what will be the test?

If there is no test, then the scumbag deserves to be punished for what he says, my question only gave these two options.
So basically people support the freedom of speech only when it is not against the law? What should the law be then?
It's pretty strange when everybody (and the law) supports Charlie Hebdo to say what they want, but the people Charlie Hebdo annoys are not allowed to respond by saying what they want. Doesn't that create a power inequality that enrages the side that is not allowed to respond?
Unless you mean to say that the guy literally supported terrorism in any substantial way with what he said (e.g. he helped the planning of further attacks with what he said), but then you might want to be so kind as to explain that. His tweet seems relatively harmless, more like an angry reaction.

ACIN's solution is to make freedom of speech more universal, I assume that means you would be allowed to say that you (morally) support this or that terrorist attack. Then we could ask further whether money also constitutes free speech as it does in US politics if I understand that correctly.

I can't say I prefer either extreme but arresting someone just for a tweet seems a bit heavy handed to me.

[Don Corleone]

I may be mistaken on this, but I believe that here in the US, you are legally allowed to state that you support the terrorists. Plenty of people were marching around, supporting the 19 terrorists after 9/11. It may not be wise or safe, but it is legal.

Generally speaking, the only bounds legally allowed in the US are 1) slander (which is actually pretty tough to prove here because you have to prove malicious intent, not just that the statement was malicious and incorrect) and 2) where your speech itself causes harm (shouting "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater and the human stampede that would be caused). Yes, there's a LOT of legally wrangling on that fine line of when does the speech itself actually cause harm (Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist loonies won time and again in court).

[Brenus]

“It's pretty strange when everybody (and the law) supports Charlie Hebdo to say what they want, but the people Charlie Hebdo annoys are not allowed to respond by saying what they want.” Err, no. Charlie Hebdo publication of the Cartoon against Pope, Muhammad and others Religions is within the law. CH never told atheists to kill believers; they mocked aspect of the faith. They never published a text saying it was right to kill.
The sad individual who was once funny is saying it is not only ok but good to kill Jews. This is against the law. This is not an opinion, as killing unlawfully is not legal, it is an offense. Perhaps in other countries it is legal to call for killings. Well, not In France. Perhaps in others countries it is legal to glorify murders, and murderers, not in France.
France paid a HUGE price for Religious Obscurantism, fanatics and slaughter in the past. Our bloodiest wars were Religious, between Catholics and Protestants (not speaking of internal Crusades and witches hunting). One of the French (king) Saint Louis the XIV, was the one imposing a special sign to be wear by the Jews (la rouelle, a yellow wheel), symbol they have to buy, there is no small profit; and to pierce with a hot poker the tongues of the blasphemers, of course. He is an OFFICIAL Saint of the Catholic Church, this nice one.

[Viking]

The sad individual who was once funny is saying it is not only ok but good to kill Jews.

No, he said "As for me, I feel I am Charlie Coulibaly" and was arrested. Which is utterly ridiculous.

[Gilrandir]

"You make an assumption without having asked them." No need to ask, just to live with "Muslims" is enough, to go partying with them, to chat-up the girls in University. You ignore reality. As usual.

You and Sarmatian denied me knowing the sentiment of Russian-speakers in Ukraine, yet you can have a common carouse with a limited number of Muslims in your environment and boast of knowing the feelings of all (or at least majority) of them.

"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?)" Remind me somebody, during other debate, telling it is not nice to blame the victim of an aggression... Ah, yes, it was you... Can you, at least, be consistent? Well, every one is allowed to change his/her mind, true...

You said in the other debate that Ukraine was a victim yet it was to blame for provoking the aggression (as you saw it). Bear-poking, remember? So it is in YOUR logics that Charlie Ebdo are to blame in what has happened to them.
The difference between Ukraine and Ebdo is that Ukrainians (except, perhaps, Svoboda) in their worst nightmares never could see Russia as an aggressor, while the magazine have been the targets of attacks (albeit not so violent) before, so they should have known better that some day their "muslim-poking" might come to this.

Charlie Hebdo publication of the Cartoon against Pope, Muhammad and others Religions is within the law. CH never told atheists to kill believers; they mocked aspect of the faith.

And they increased their circulation to 5 mln. copies and got some nice sponsors. That is if we speak of beneficiaries of the slaughter.

If there is no test, then the scumbag deserves to be punished for what he says, my question only gave these two options.
So basically people support the freedom of speech only when it is not against the law? What should the law be then?

The same as about listening to some songs: you just can't do that.
http://www.unian.info/world/1031777-...em-in-car.html

[Husar]

“It's pretty strange when everybody (and the law) supports Charlie Hebdo to say what they want, but the people Charlie Hebdo annoys are not allowed to respond by saying what they want.” Err, no. Charlie Hebdo publication of the Cartoon against Pope, Muhammad and others Religions is within the law. CH never told atheists to kill believers; they mocked aspect of the faith. They never published a text saying it was right to kill.
The sad individual who was once funny is saying it is not only ok but good to kill Jews. This is against the law. This is not an opinion, as killing unlawfully is not legal, it is an offense. Perhaps in other countries it is legal to call for killings. Well, not In France. Perhaps in others countries it is legal to glorify murders, and murderers, not in France.

Eh, what Viking said:

No, he said "As for me, I feel I am Charlie Coulibaly" and was arrested. Which is utterly ridiculous.

That's what the articles say he was arrested for, he is not really calling for anything or saying anything is okay. His statement can be interpreted from a lot of angles, some of which are more and some less "okay", but it is quite strange that he was arrested for this based on some law that supposedly forbids this. It could have just been an attempt to be edgy and start a discussion, unless you think he was announcing that he'd become a terrorist on twitter and then stayed at home to wait for the police.

And that part about laws fails to address my point, which was not about whether this is legal in France, but whether it makes sense to protest in favor of free speech and to then arrest people for speaking their mind? First everybody turns to the streets to protest for freedom and a more inclusive and friendly society, then you arrest 54 people who said something you don't like.

The following article explains it a bit, apparently he has a history of saying even worse things: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8329e256-9...#axzz3Osv1qSQU

It's still pretty obvious that the arrests are some kind of crackdown or fear reaction supposed to show that the government is acting on the "terror threat". The Charles de Gaulle also left for the Persian Gulf to go bomb some people. Let's hope the US supply some new bombs again when you run out again.

France paid a HUGE price for Religious Obscurantism, fanatics and slaughter in the past. Our bloodiest wars were Religious, between Catholics and Protestants (not speaking of internal Crusades and witches hunting). One of the French (king) Saint Louis the XIV, was the one imposing a special sign to be wear by the Jews (la rouelle, a yellow wheel), symbol they have to buy, there is no small profit; and to pierce with a hot poker the tongues of the blasphemers, of course. He is an OFFICIAL Saint of the Catholic Church, this nice one.

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? Or what exactly is the point here? Do arrests make a problem go away?

[InsaneApache]

This lady finds a hammer and a nail and hits it right on the head.

[Fragony]

Yeah she is great. A shame not everybody is physically capable of watching it

[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

[Brenus]

"That is just your interpretation of what he said." Oh. He said he was this killer, the one who killed 4 Jews and this can be interpreted in what exactly? A killer of Jews, by a man who was convicted for antisemitism, but yeay, you can be against the killing and tell that you the killer who did it, celebrate the killing. So, ok, there are laws you can ignore when it just because the guy you celebrate the name killed Jews.
So, tell me, what did he said, according to your interpretation, give me the joke?

[Kralizec]

Oh. He said he was this killer, the one who killed 4 Jews and this can be interpreted in what exactly?

As a tasteless joke from a comedian who admittedly happens to be a flaming racist?

Along with his previous controversies it might be seen as a pattern of anti-semitism, but qualifying this particular statement as glorifying or condoning murder sounds like stretch...

[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.

[Montmorency]

Arbitrary in what sense?

Not in any special sense. Are you getting at meta-arbitrariness?

But I can be more specific. Even granted some individual's views on speech and expression, if that individual claims to support free speech in one breath and restricts it in another with the precise justification that they are preserving freedom at large or have identified some correct area of qualification in the matter, then I call them inconsistent/a liar.

[Viking]

But I can be more specific. Even granted some individual's views on speech and expression, if that individual claims to support free speech in one breath and restricts it in another with the precise justification that they are preserving freedom at large or have identified some correct area of qualification in the matter, then I call them inconsistent/a liar.

One can use different angles (e.g. semantics) to defend the apparent inconsistency.

Here's one: If you wish to defend freedom of speech, issuing laws to help in this defence would seem OK. If some utterances by some people are likely to reduce the freedom of speech of some other people; either because these other people become fearful and censor themselves or even stay quiet (attacked or not attacked), or even killed because of those utterances - then one can argue that outlawing these utterances makes for a freer speech in sum.

[Montmorency]

If some utterances by some people are likely to reduce the freedom of speech of some other people; either because these other people become fearful and censor themselves or even stay quiet (attacked or not attacked), or even killed because of those utterances - then one can argue that outlawing these utterances makes for a freer speech in sum.

Sure, but that's a distinct approach.

And in that case, even if you escape the pitfalls of justification through appeal to some principle, you become mixed in the construction of evidence.

After all, how can a bare communicative event ever reduce the freedom of expression of others (or some other freedom/right of choice) unless in some performative sense, as in ordering the imprisonment of some individual - as in the very sort of abstract thing being attempted here.

IMO if a regime must restrict freedom of expression in any systematic way to achieve or maintain some objective, then it has already failed in it.

[Fragony]

Directly stolen from Geenstijl, this is just too hilarious http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven....html#comments

The killer's sister teaches how to twerk

[Viking]

After all, how can a bare communicative event ever reduce the freedom of expression of others (or some other freedom/right of choice) unless in some performative sense, as in ordering the imprisonment of some individual - as in the very sort of abstract thing being attempted here.

I don't get where you are coming from here. I've already expressed exactly how some utterances could create fear in others and cause them to withdraw from public discourse.

IMO if a regime must restrict freedom of expression in any systematic way to achieve or maintain some objective, then it has already failed in it.

How? The law enforcement is neither perfect nor omnipotent; it cannot literally guarantee the safety of anyone.

[Montmorency]

I don't get where you are coming from here. I've already expressed exactly how some utterances could create fear in others and cause them to withdraw from public discourse.

See

How? The law enforcement is neither perfect nor omnipotent; it cannot literally guarantee the safety of anyone.

If expression is targeted for curtailment in order to preserve expression, then the goal of any putative curtailment has already fallen through.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Will respond to ACIN shortly, but in the meantime, here is an excellent piece by a moderate Muslim who wants to defend traditional Western values of free speech:

As a Muslim, I'm fed up with the hypocrisy of the free speech fundamentalists

[Viking]

If expression is targeted for curtailment in order to preserve expression, then the goal of any putative curtailment has already fallen through.

If you are referring to that people could censor themselves more than what would be required to not break the law, then yes, that should be expected. But this still doesn't mean that the original goal of keeping the freedom of speech at a maximum level is defeated; it just adds some extra weight to the counterargument.