[davidnu]

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.

[mercurial]

> 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.

[davidnu2]

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.

[mercurial]

> 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.

[pessimizer]

>widen that definitions in order to suppress adversaries

Billionaire Compares Outrage Over Rich In SF To Kristallnacht

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/01/26/266685...

JPMorgan Chase's Jamie Dimon: Anti-Banking Sentiment 'A Form Of Discrimination'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/jamie-dimon-discrim...

[agumonkey]

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.

[kubiiii]

He'd be somewhat protected, but most certainely under heavy surveillance and most probably on a no fly list because of his friendship with Iran.