[patrickaljord]

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.

France is also the biggest censor of tweets http://www.numerama.com/magazine/28312-la-france-fait-explos...

[mercurial]

> 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.

Which ones in particular?

[Zancarius]

> 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.).

[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time...

[mercurial]

> 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.

[Zancarius]

> 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.

[mercurial]

> 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.

[Zancarius]

> That's much stronger than a disagreement about hate speech.

I'll grant you that, but you have to admit: The more laws you draft limiting the definition of what construes free speech, the more you're eroding it. Hate speech laws are an example of such.

> 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.

Well, I'm glad that we're reaching common ground (that actually excites me--please don't take my arguments against your points negatively!). I do agree that sending someone to jail for making questionable threats makes very little sense, but it has been used to some success the world over. In particular, abuse of tactics like that is at least partially to blame for the US jail population being so high. Perhaps not literally, but if you're the wrong color or in the wrong neighborhood, it doesn't take much convincing to be sent away for a few months...

[kybernetikos]

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).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

[Zancarius]

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.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell