I'm French and I agree with him. There's no freedom of speech in France or at least it's seriously limited. It's easy to accuse anyone of hate speech for example and get him banned and fined. There's also offenses against the president and not to forget journalists getting mysteriously fired all the time because they were a bit too critical of the government.
> It's easy to accuse anyone of hate speech for example and get him banned and fined.
Are you trying to say that laws against hate speech are a bad thing, or that they are abused in France? If they are abused in France, I'd appreciate relevant examples. Not Dieudonné, as this unfortunate character has made his bread and butter of antisemitism the last few years.
> There's also offenses against the president
Fair enough. I'd like to point out, though, that the last person to be condemned for "offense to the head of state" had to pay 30 euros after insulting Nicolas Sarkozy. That's not exactly financial ruin, but I'd like this law to go away entirely.
> journalists getting mysteriously fired all the time because they were a bit too critical of the government.
> Are you trying to say that laws against hate speech are a bad thing, or that they are abused in France?
I may regret this, but I'll step out on a limb and say yes. I know nothing of French politics, but I think hate speech laws are counter to the notion of free speech. Either you allow all speech or you allow none. Obviously, France may lack the protections citizens of other countries enjoy, and perhaps supporting such limits on free speech then becomes a matter of personal pride, making it a rather contentious issue.
Hate speech laws are almost Orwellian in a sense: Free speech is good, but some speech is baaaaaaad. In my opinion, free speech is lost the instant you start eroding it with heinous laws that limit it. Here in the US at least, anti-hate speech proponents tend to use the "fire in a crowded theater" argument time and again as proof of limits on free speech rights, in spite that it's out of context and incorrect [1]. The other problem is that everyone generally agrees that free speech is fine, but there's a certain disagreement on what parts of speech should be considered taboo or outright illegal.
The question then, in my mind, isn't whether or not governments should ban certain types of speech. I don't think they should, because it's counter to free speech protections. However, the messier question is whether social sanctions should be imposed upon citizens by non-government actors whenever hateful or potentially offensive speech is used. For instance, should an employer be allowed to fire someone because of public racist remarks? What if that employer is the government? What if the remarks were offensive to the government (think anti-war)?
The point to free speech (generally, at least in the US) is that it enables one to say what they wish without government intervention. It doesn't, however, protect them from consequences of their speech imposed against them by other citizens (boycotts, firing, etc.).
> In my opinion, free speech is lost the instant you start eroding it with heinous laws that limit it.
I don't know about heinous, but, say, incitation to murder shouldn't be protected free speech (see, eg, Rwanda). So you have to live with limitations in a civilized society, the debate is only on where to set these limits.
> However, the messier question is whether social sanctions should be imposed upon citizens by non-government actors whenever hateful or potentially offensive speech is used. For instance, should an employer be allowed to fire someone because of public racist remarks?
In my mind, employers should abide by the law. Otherwise, it's just as easy to fire somebody for expressing political opinions you disagree with. This shouldn't be a ground for termination.
> What if that employer is the government? What if the remarks were offensive to the government (think anti-war)?
French civil servants are supposed to be neutral in terms of politics, just like soldiers give up a number of rights during their time of service.
> I don't know about heinous, but, say, incitation to murder shouldn't be protected free speech (see, eg, Rwanda). So you have to live with limitations in a civilized society, the debate is only on where to set these limits.
I think you're moving the goal post a bit. In the post I was responding to, you were specifically calling out hate speech. Inciting murder and using hateful, racist language are often separate. Yes, I realize the two can be conflated (e.g. racist language inciting violence), but generally, hate speech laws attempt to limit speech that is construed as hateful, typically against a specific racial, ethnic, or other minority. Of course, I suppose I have libertarian leanings that wire me in a manner that make it very difficult to understand why government intervention is seen as a panacea
That said, I'm not precisely sure your example is quite as clear cut in terms of free speech as there are other laws which deal with matters of public safety, premeditation and the sorts, and calling for someone's murder could easily fit into categories outside free speech, depending largely on the circumstances. But, that's a matter for the courts and has been debated ad nauseum for centuries.
> I think you're moving the goal post a bit. In the post I was responding to, you were specifically calling out hate speech.
Sure. But in your response, you expressed the following:
> In my opinion, free speech is lost the instant you start eroding it with heinous laws that limit it.
That's much stronger than a disagreement about hate speech.
> That said, I'm not precisely sure your example is quite as clear cut in terms of free speech as there are other laws which deal with matters of public safety, premeditation and the sorts, and calling for someone's murder could easily fit into categories outside free speech, depending largely on the circumstances.
I'm no lawyer, but if you don't yourself act on it or participate in planning murder, it sounds like very shaky grounds to send someone to jail.
Your argument seems to suggest that you think that speech should be entirely unrestricted. I don't know of any country in the world that has ever had such a policy. Even though it may be one of the countries in which speech is most protected, there are still a fair few limitations in the US [1].
So I'm not clear whether you're arguing for a radical position of no limits at all to speech, or if you're trying to put forward your own particular view of which parts of speech should be considered legal and which illegal (which as you rightly point out is problematic unless the distinctions and reasons for them are made very clear, which you don't seem to do).
I'm using the extremist position as illustrative rather than prescriptive, because my personal conviction is that hate speech legislation can ultimately be more harmful toward public dialog, particularly if it is abused. That's not to say hate speech isn't without its consequences. I suspect you understood that given the remainder of your comment.
What ultimately bothers me most is the knee-jerk "ban all hate speech" approach as a solution for deeper societal problems that aren't simply going to be fixed by censoring words, which is what started this thread.
Interestingly, the Wikipedia link you shared addresses points I didn't have in mind when I posted my comment (namely obscenities, child porn, etc. that have all be attempted in some form or other to be protected under "free speech"). Specifically, I had in mind the written or spoken word rather than necessarily depictions or offense (but then that leads us to the debate of what is "art" and whether or not specific artwork could be construed as free speech or otherwise--it's a broad topic).
The curious thing with regards to obscenity is that cultural restrictions on it have loosened over time. Larry Flint's success before SCOTUS in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell [1] comes to mind as an example. This is why "free speech" is a contentious issue, because it seems that no one can generally agree on what should or shouldn't be protected and what should or shouldn't be censored by the government or by governmental agencies.
The French Government had videos of Police officers mocking minorities removed from various news organizations.
Law for Trust in the Digital Economy (LCEN) Article 18 grants the French Government the ability to remove any content that may destabilize the public, hurt nation defense, or physically harm persons.
That being said currently France is ranked #6 out of all nations in terms of Internet Freedom, due to internet policing while being possible rarely exercised.
>> The French Government had videos of Police officers mocking minorities removed from various news organizations.
Well, in almost every country, police force recruit among the least brilliant. Hatred of differences is what stupid people do. Violence is what stupid people do when given power to do so (intelligent people handed power preferring control over violence). So no big surprise here when it come to police.
The government point is more worrying, but I don't remember any incident of that kind under current government.
You can read (in french: http://hollande-demission.fr/) how the government BURNT protesters' banner... and other similar illegal actions, like taking "stealing" their car with no legal ground (they pretend "Hollande démission" is an ad)
This group calls for the dismissal (démission) of president Hollande.
That's how you can tell if newspapers are objective or not: you don't hear much about him in "balanced sources of information"... and you definitely don't hear about his banner or car.
He has complained in court against these actions... We'll see how it goes.
In the meantime, you can watch his videos, and see the cops take his car (quite objective and balanced source of information :-)
> That's how you can tell if newspapers are objective or not: you don't hear much about him in "balanced sources of information"... and you definitely don't hear about his banner or car.
I don't have French TV here (or French newspapers) but judging from the little I can find on the Internet about this character, I'm not convinced much of his activities is particularly newsworthy.
What about that French comedian that has your government exploring ways to ban his act? his material maybe reprehensible but in the US he'd have first amendment protection. Your country also has draconian and stringent liable laws, and I don't want it to have anything to do with Internet governance.
> What about that French comedian that has your government exploring ways to ban his act?
Well, what about him? France is not the US, you have hate laws here. Nobody is trying to ban him because he is criticizing the government.
That's not parent is saying anyway: Perhaps they'll uses the French model and make it illegal to say anything critical about the French government. Last time I checked, the Figaro and le Point (conservative newspapers) were alive and well.
Exactly right, the problem is that you're not the US.
"Hate laws" are censorship. "Hateful" speech is equally protected under the US constitution, and any political movements it might inspire will not be infringed upon by the government.
The fundamental problem with "hate laws" in the context of speech is the definition of "hate", totalitarian governments tend to widen that definitions in order to suppress adversaries, this might be theoretical in your case but it's still an attack victor.
The Internet must be built on the example of the "freest" framework available and that is the US's.
> Exactly right, the problem is that you're not the US.
Exactly right about what? The original claim is that the French government is trying to muzzle criticism. You then bring up the case of a humorist condemned for his antisemitic views as a supporting example. This doesn't make any sense, unless you're going for some weird conspiracy theory - in which case, I'll believe any conspiracy theory as long as comes with convincing evidence, of which there doesn't seem to be any.
> The fundamental problem with "hate laws" in the context of speech is the definition of "hate", totalitarian governments tend to widen that definitions in order to suppress adversaries, this might be theoretical in your case but it's still an attack victor.
> The Internet must be built on the example of the "freest" framework available and that is the US's.
I'm on the fence about it. Besides, even in the US there are limits on freedom of speech.
Don't mind this story. It is 10% social pacification[1] and 90% hopeless PR stunt conflating many issues into one for they're barely capable of managing anything else. If they ever spend time on low-hanging things like this they will create more pain for themselves.
[1] there were many people diverting his 'jokes' into offensive acts, not by his call but he kept the heater on when asked to tame it down.
France is also the biggest censor of tweets http://www.numerama.com/magazine/28312-la-france-fait-explos...