'Freedom' of speech

[betiko]

How is the term "incite terrorism" defined under French law? I think that would be relevant to determine whether this comedian has violated the law (and whether Charliehebdo violated the law when publishing cartoons). I think it's pretty obvious that prosecuting this particular comedian is rather hypocritical.

Well, it's pretty obivous for someone that doesn't know anything about french law maybe.
But otherwise no, there is absolutely nothing obvious.

Please - also note that Charlie Hebdo has also been prosecuted in the past and was judged innocent.
Note that this particular comedian has also been prosecuted several times in the past, sometimes guilty, sometimes innocent. Will see for this one. But this has nothing related or to do with Charlei Hebdo.

How is the term "incite terrorism" defined under French law?

Promoting terrorism is forbidden. After what it's a judge that decide. Not you - not me. Justice is independant in France

How is "promoting terrorism" defined? I do think it's important to define the terms (as they are defined under French law).

Note, I'm not trying to defend what this guy says; I'm just confused as to how the French can support free speech on the one hand and not support free speech on the other where the only apparent (to me, unknowledgeable about all things French) difference is the target of the speech.

If I pretend the United States has a law that prohibits speech that would "promote terrorism," I could argue that a newspaper posting cartoons that would anger terrorists is "promoting terrorism" (or "inciting terrorism"). We don't have that kind of law (to my knowledge).

Easy. Dieudonné's speach is that the people the terrorist killed is a good thing and that he supports them.

What charlie hebdo did, was to post a picture with Mahomet crying and saying "it s hard to be loved by idiots" refering to extremists.

I know you are smart enough to understand where we draw the line.

[betiko]

Ps: the betiko bureau of censorship has decided to foe sabotage.
Motive: he writes long and stupid posts that are a total waste of time to read and to answer. He has lost his freedom to speak to betiko freely. Sorry.

[_sabotage_]

[mrswdk]

Expressing empathy with a terrorist's grievances = supporting terrorism?

Emmmmmm, no

there is no empathy to have with people who murdered others because of their religion or their drawings or because they are cops. Mostly a week later when things are so fresh. If you can't understand that point of view, well there is no need for further discussion.

Saying that you understand why those attackers were upset is not the same as saying that they went about airing their grievances in an appropriate manner. And if your argument is that someone is not allowed to express such a sentiment on the grounds that 'people are still upset about the attacks' then you are undermining that very same freedom of speech principle that you have spent the last week professing to support.

[thegreekdog]

Easy. Dieudonné's speach is that the people the terrorist killed is a good thing and that he supports them.

What charlie hebdo did, was to post a picture with Mahomet crying and saying "it s hard to be loved by idiots" refering to extremists.

I know you are smart enough to understand where we draw the line.

Apparently, I'm not smart enough since I'm still confused.

On the one hand, you have someone who allegedly is supporting the terrorists via speech (let's ignore, of course, that many people support many different kinds of terrorism via speech or money in various forms). Then you have someone who allegedly is inciting the terrorists via speech. To my knowledge, "supporting the terrorists via speech" is not a crime in France (unless it falls under "incite"). To my knowledge, inciting terrorists via speech would be a crime.

Personally, I view neither of these things as crimes. One is highly offensive to me; the other is not. However, I can see how the other is highly offensive. But, again, I'm not sure "being offensive" is equitable to "inciting terrorism" or anything else.

Ps: the betiko bureau of censorship has decided to foe sabotage.
Motive: he writes long and stupid posts that are a total waste of time to read and to answer. He has lost his freedom to speak to betiko freely. Sorry.

You should do what I recommend other people do (in both CC world and real life) - Rather than foeing, just don't read it.

[betiko]

So what do you do with imams (or rabbis or priests) promoting hatred or jihad, crusades or whatever? Is it ok to give them full freedom of speech? Dieudonné hides behind humour to promote despicable values that are as dangerous as a mad djihadist.

There is a difference between banter and flaming in this forum for example.

I could use the same words in different contexts towards someone in this forum, and it could be seen as flaming or banter depending on how i say it and the context of the conversation. I could get a ban or I could get nothing at all.

The charlie hebdo drawings falls under the context of "grow a pair dude", while Dieudonné s words under "flaming".
While both cases are provocations, one is just trolling while the other machiavelically wants to hurt and cause havoc.

[waauw]

Easy. Dieudonné's speach is that the people the terrorist killed is a good thing and that he supports them.

What charlie hebdo did, was to post a picture with Mahomet crying and saying "it s hard to be loved by idiots" refering to extremists.

I know you are smart enough to understand where we draw the line.

Apparently, I'm not smart enough since I'm still confused.

On the one hand, you have someone who allegedly is supporting the terrorists via speech (let's ignore, of course, that many people support many different kinds of terrorism via speech or money in various forms). Then you have someone who allegedly is inciting the terrorists via speech. To my knowledge, "supporting the terrorists via speech" is not a crime in France (unless it falls under "incite"). To my knowledge, inciting terrorists via speech would be a crime.

Personally, I view neither of these things as crimes. One is highly offensive to me; the other is not. However, I can see how the other is highly offensive. But, again, I'm not sure "being offensive" is equitable to "inciting terrorism" or anything else.

It's not about what the eventual result is, it's the goal in mind, the idea behind it that matters. For instance Charlie Hebdo criticized islamist fundamentalism through his cartoons, thus inciting anger, but his goal was to just point at others fallacies. This is something easily pointed out by the fact that he criticized a lot more people, religions, political parties, ideas... than just the muslims.

Concerning "The line", I would agree though that some borderline situations are hard to judge if they're figuratively walking the line.

[waauw]

So what do you do with imams (or rabbis or priests) promoting hatred or jihad, crusades or whatever? Is it ok to give them full freedom of speech? Dieudonné hides behind humour to promote despicable values that are as dangerous as a mad djihadist.

There is a difference between banter and flaming in this forum for example.

I could use the same words in different contexts towards someone in this forum, and it could be seen as flaming or banter depending on how i say it and the context of the conversation. I could get a ban or I could get nothing at all.

The charlie hebdo drawings falls under the context of "grow a pair dude", while Dieudonné s words under "flaming".
While both cases are provocations, one is just trolling while the other machiavelically wants to hurt and cause havoc.

I agree, if europe didn't have laws like this, we'd also have european variations to the american KKK causing all kinds of hatred.

[_sabotage_]

How's ignoring people like me working out?

Guess Biden is worth ignoring: There are no moderates in Syria.

Guess the FSA is worth ignoring: We are supplying US weapons to ISIS.

Guess Clinton is worth ignoring: We created Al Qaeda.

Guess widely known facts are worth ignoring: We supplied Al Qaeda with weapons in Libya, Syria and elsewhere to overthrow governments.

Guess Wesley Clark is worth ignoring: I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

Keep your head in the sand and when they keep doing this shit, feel the pangs, remember it was you who let it happen.

[saxitoxin]

So what do you do with imams (or rabbis or priests) promoting hatred or jihad, crusades or whatever? Is it ok to give them full freedom of speech? Dieudonné hides behind humour to promote despicable values that are as dangerous as a mad djihadist.

There is a difference between banter and flaming in this forum for example.

I could use the same words in different contexts towards someone in this forum, and it could be seen as flaming or banter depending on how i say it and the context of the conversation. I could get a ban or I could get nothing at all.

The charlie hebdo drawings falls under the context of "grow a pair dude", while Dieudonné s words under "flaming".
While both cases are provocations, one is just trolling while the other machiavelically wants to hurt and cause havoc.

I agree, if europe didn't have laws like this, we'd also have european variations to the american KKK causing all kinds of hatred.

You mean like Jobbik or the EDL?

[waauw]

So what do you do with imams (or rabbis or priests) promoting hatred or jihad, crusades or whatever? Is it ok to give them full freedom of speech? Dieudonné hides behind humour to promote despicable values that are as dangerous as a mad djihadist.

There is a difference between banter and flaming in this forum for example.

I could use the same words in different contexts towards someone in this forum, and it could be seen as flaming or banter depending on how i say it and the context of the conversation. I could get a ban or I could get nothing at all.

The charlie hebdo drawings falls under the context of "grow a pair dude", while Dieudonné s words under "flaming".
While both cases are provocations, one is just trolling while the other machiavelically wants to hurt and cause havoc.

I agree, if europe didn't have laws like this, we'd also have european variations to the american KKK causing all kinds of hatred.

You mean like Jobbik or the EDL?

Well maybe I went a stretch to generalize europe. But in Belgium we had the Vlaams Blok(far right political party) condemned as well as 'Sharia for Belgium'. And I know in the Netherlands there is currently a process running against Geert Wilders(leader of far right party).

So yeah, these kind of laws are helpful. Especially when political parties are involved, their reputation gets destroyed.

[BoganGod]

Goes back to protected species. Free speech is fine, along as you don't mention - ......., .........., .........,

You can't exclude some topics from conversation and pretend that you have free speech. When it comes to the difference between flaming and baiting. Commentary and opinion are one thing. Saying something is something. Can be libel, countries with both free press and strong libel laws have less faux outrage and more constructive and brave discussion.

[mrswdk]

While both cases are provocations, one is just trolling while the other machiavelically wants to hurt and cause havoc

So in your view it's acceptable to troll when you know full well that not only are you going to grossly offend a truck load people but could also provoke an atrocity while doing so (Charlie Hebdo), so long as you are not actively calling for such an attack?

Given that it seems highly unlikely that the comedian's words were intended as an incitement to terrorism, this means the comedian's case is as almost exactly the same as that of the guys at Charlie Hebdo, whom you have vigorously defended. Multiple people in this thread are pointing this out and you are burying your head in the sand and ignoring them.

[_sabotage_]

http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/halifax-s-da ... -1.2189877

I know this guy. We used to chat outside the Dalhousie student union building.

Kind of funny, the suggestion of taking his license. As far as I am aware, the city tried to get him off that spot forever and finally caved and gave him a license due to his popularity.

From a 2006 article:

Who says you can’t fight city hall? Jerry Reddick, aka the Dawgfather, has been battling Halifax Regional Municipality for six years over the right to sell cheap eats outside Dal’s Student Union Building. On Tuesday, the self-styled black pugilist won another round when Regional Council overruled city staff and voted to “grandfather the Dawgfather.” That means Reddick will continue peddling his dawgs for at least one more year from his push cart on University Avenue.

[Metsfanmax]

My slightly related evolution on the topic as it pertained to America/Obama not being present at the march in France.

Me: 'Thoroughly disappointed America is not showing a face or lending any support in Paris.'

Me at the end of the day 'Religious extremism and Freedom of Speech...shouldn't be a stretch to assume these are fundamentally important issues to a majority of Americans and a rare occasion for our country to be united on something, for once in a generation. Then again, America 2.0.... who the hell are 'we' collectively? To try to offer an example on how to fight religious extremism when 'we' are too scared to even calI radical Isam by name???, Who are we to stand for Freedom of Speech, when political correctness dominates not only what we say or don't say but even think and don't think, what our schools teach and don't teach, who gets fired and who can keep their job, accept certain words from a certain races as totally normal, but another race says it they can be forced out of business, and for any who don't go along with whatever feels right it's they are ostracized and categorized by hateful terminology. .I guess my original take was based on what I thought was important and what I thought we should strive for,. Absorbing America 2.0 in the correct and current context, I realize any possible talk from America at the march about Freedom or Liberty is going to be met by claims of hypocrisy, and the claims won't be without merit either. The constant task of working towards a more perfect union may have peaked.'

Yes, "radical" Islamists (the type that blow up bombs on buses) are a menace to modern liberal society, and to some extent this is the fault of Islam as a whole. But when secularists in the US make comments about "radical" Christians who hate gay people, you interpret it as part of a "war on religion" that needs to be stopped because our First Amendment protects our freedom to practice our religion. If the First Amendment protects Christianity, it also protects Islam, and so when you say we need to "fight religious extremism" it is hard to take that seriously when if I said that about a Christian you would feel personally attacked.

[Dukasaur]

Bigard is saying 11 september was not a terrorist attack. He is not saying, the 11 september terrorist attack was a good thing.
Dieudonné is saying : Coulibaly killing jew is a good thing = this terrorist attack was a good thing.

If you're not protecting offensive speech, you don't have free speech.

Inoffensive speech doesn't need protecting.

Well - I am fine with you saying France doesn't have free speech.
Indeed, it is not ok in France to say whatever you want. We have a restricted freddom of speech.

But, just to be sure, it's not about offensive or not offensive.
It is about encouraging hate or violence. That is forbidden in France. As well as few other things like negating human crimes, supporting terrorism.

This is very disappointing.

France is the birthplace of the Enlightenment.

I know many books which have bored their readers, but I know of none which has done real evil.

What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly - that is the first law of nature.

Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Of all the French contributions to civilization, the wisdom of Voltaire, along with Bastiat, Bayle, Diderot, and others, was the greatest and longest-lasting.

It is very sad to see France forget the lessons taught by its own great men.

[saxitoxin]

Since that glorious “free speech” march, France has reportedly opened 54 criminal cases for “condoning terrorism.” AP reported this morning that “France ordered prosecutors around the country to crack down on hate speech, anti-Semitism and glorifying terrorism.”

As pernicious as this arrest and related “crackdown” on some speech obviously is, it provides a critical value: namely, it underscores the utter scam that was this week’s celebration of free speech in the west. The day before the Charlie Hebdo attack, I coincidentally documented the multiple cases in the west – including in the U.S. – where Muslims have been prosecuted and even imprisoned for their political speech. Vanishingly few of this week’s bold free expression mavens have ever uttered a peep of protest about any of those cases – either before the Charlie Hebdo attack or since. That’s because “free speech,” in the hands of many westerners, actually means: it is vital that the ideas I like be protected, and the right to offend groups I dislike be cherished; anything else is fair game.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... -comments/

[DoomYoshi]

When one and a half million Muslims get upset at their god being repeatedly and deliberately blasphemed they are told to suck it up because freedom of speech, but when someone writes 'Je suis Charlie Coulibaly' on social media he is arrested for hatemongering.

The message is clear: Muslims, France does not respect you or your culture.

you beat me

to it

typical hypocrisy

Do you see the fucking outfits Dieudonne wears? I would put him in prison for that.

[Phatscotty]

Ps: the betiko bureau of censorship has decided to foe sabotage.
Motive: he writes long and stupid posts that are a total waste of time to read and to answer. He has lost his freedom to speak to betiko freely. Sorry.

I've noticed that a bit, but I still like to read him.

Code Green Status unchanged, remaining 'tolerant'

Tolerance is the price we pay for other's toleration of ourself.

[betiko]

While both cases are provocations, one is just trolling while the other machiavelically wants to hurt and cause havoc

So in your view it's acceptable to troll when you know full well that not only are you going to grossly offend a truck load people but could also provoke an atrocity while doing so (Charlie Hebdo), so long as you are not actively calling for such an attack?

Given that it seems highly unlikely that the comedian's words were intended as an incitement to terrorism, this means the comedian's case is as almost exactly the same as that of the guys at Charlie Hebdo, whom you have vigorously defended. Multiple people in this thread are pointing this out and you are burying your head in the sand and ignoring them.

The problem here wdk is that you are not listening. Yes, Dieudonné s words ARE intended to incite terrorism. This guy has been slowly drifting towards madness in the past 10-15 years and is a really dangerous man. This man is a deep hater. If you don t know anything about him or about the different video he posts, stop assuming stuff about him.
This comes from someone (me) who has been closing his eyes, trying to see everything coming from him as trolling. But he obviously believes what he says. I ve watched tons of his stuff, believe me.

[betiko]

Since that glorious “free speech” march, France has reportedly opened 54 criminal cases for “condoning terrorism.” AP reported this morning that “France ordered prosecutors around the country to crack down on hate speech, anti-Semitism and glorifying terrorism.”

As pernicious as this arrest and related “crackdown” on some speech obviously is, it provides a critical value: namely, it underscores the utter scam that was this week’s celebration of free speech in the west. The day before the Charlie Hebdo attack, I coincidentally documented the multiple cases in the west – including in the U.S. – where Muslims have been prosecuted and even imprisoned for their political speech. Vanishingly few of this week’s bold free expression mavens have ever uttered a peep of protest about any of those cases – either before the Charlie Hebdo attack or since. That’s because “free speech,” in the hands of many westerners, actually means: it is vital that the ideas I like be protected, and the right to offend groups I dislike be cherished; anything else is fair game.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... -comments/

If you're talking about Dieudonné; he's catholic and not muslim. The imam leader behind last week's attack had been emprisoned in the last few years for stuff he said and stuff he was promoting, yes. Apparently he now changed his POV on many things and isn't as radical and was released from prison a few years ago. If you think you're better informed through some outsider who don't know who dieudonné is, well fine. It's just funny to see people giving lectures when they know f*ck all about the person they're defending.

[waauw]

This is very disappointing.
France is the birthplace of the Enlightenment.

Of all the French contributions to civilization, the wisdom of Voltaire, along with Bastiat, Bayle, Diderot, and others, was the greatest and longest-lasting.
It is very sad to see France forget the lessons taught by its own great men.

You seem to forget that though Voltaire was a very wise and great man, between his time and now there was a second world war. The limits to free speech in several parts of europe were implemented or at least popularized because of the Nazi's. People saw the danger of free speech. In my own country the topics of 'racism' and 'nationalism' were shunned for decades in aftermath.

So with all due respect to Voltaire, but even in his wisdom he did not see the dangers of absolute free speech.

[_sabotage_]

Ps: the betiko bureau of censorship has decided to foe sabotage.
Motive: he writes long and stupid posts that are a total waste of time to read and to answer. He has lost his freedom to speak to betiko freely. Sorry.

I've noticed that a bit, but I still like to read him.

Code Green Status unchanged, remaining 'tolerant'

Tolerance is the price we pay for other's toleration of ourself.

It's not like the censorship is beginning now. He has managed to censor out that Al Qaeda was a US creation, that 9/11 is a scientific impossibility which includes at bare minimum government complicity and aid, that the wars fought were already planned, that the rights taken were already planned.

Because of his track record for censorship, his steadfast adherence to a worldview that is obviously false, anything I say sounds alien to him.

I feel like a frog trying to rescue others from a slow boiling pot, and Betiko is upset that I'm disturbing his back float. And it's not just about him endangering himself, he is allowing the government to get away with this shit with his attitude.

[Phatscotty]

My slightly related evolution on the topic as it pertained to America/Obama not being present at the march in France.

Me: 'Thoroughly disappointed America is not showing a face or lending any support in Paris.'

Me at the end of the day 'Religious extremism and Freedom of Speech...shouldn't be a stretch to assume these are fundamentally important issues to a majority of Americans and a rare occasion for our country to be united on something, for once in a generation. Then again, America 2.0.... who the hell are 'we' collectively? To try to offer an example on how to fight religious extremism when 'we' are too scared to even calI radical Isam by name???, Who are we to stand for Freedom of Speech, when political correctness dominates not only what we say or don't say but even think and don't think, what our schools teach and don't teach, who gets fired and who can keep their job, accept certain words from a certain races as totally normal, but another race says it they can be forced out of business, and for any who don't go along with whatever feels right it's they are ostracized and categorized by hateful terminology. .I guess my original take was based on what I thought was important and what I thought we should strive for,. Absorbing America 2.0 in the correct and current context, I realize any possible talk from America at the march about Freedom or Liberty is going to be met by claims of hypocrisy, and the claims won't be without merit either. The constant task of working towards a more perfect union may have peaked.'

Yes, "radical" Islamists (the type that blow up bombs on buses) are a menace to modern liberal society, and to some extent this is the fault of Islam as a whole. But when secularists in the US make comments about "radical" Christians who hate gay people, you interpret it as part of a "war on religion" that needs to be stopped because our First Amendment protects our freedom to practice our religion. If the First Amendment protects Christianity, it also protects Islam, and so when you say we need to "fight religious extremism" it is hard to take that seriously when if I said that about a Christian you would feel personally attacked.

way to equate blowing up/murdering random human beings to not embracing homosexuality. Usually we know you are just verbalextremistfanmax, but I actually believe you right now. All I can say is LULZ

If extremely religious Christians were blowing up random people and yelling 'Jesus is Love' every time, I would be personally condemning and talking a lot of shit about radical Christians and radical Christianity.

[Phatscotty]

Ps: the betiko bureau of censorship has decided to foe sabotage.
Motive: he writes long and stupid posts that are a total waste of time to read and to answer. He has lost his freedom to speak to betiko freely. Sorry.

I've noticed that a bit, but I still like to read him.

Code Green Status unchanged, remaining 'tolerant'

Tolerance is the price we pay for other's toleration of ourself.

It's not like the censorship is beginning now. He has managed to censor out that Al Qaeda was a US creation, that 9/11 is a scientific impossibility which includes at bare minimum government complicity and aid, that the wars fought were already planned, that the rights taken were already planned.

Because of his track record for censorship, his steadfast adherence to a worldview that is obviously false, anything I say sounds alien to him.

I feel like a frog trying to rescue others from a slow boiling pot, and Betiko is upset that I'm disturbing his back float. And it's not just about him endangering himself, he is allowing the government to get away with this shit with his attitude.

that's okay, it's not like Betiko or any single other person on the planet is going to understand and perceive things exactly the way you do. At least we can talk about it and bounce things back and forth and decide for ourselves, no doubt being richer in knowledge (usually)