Je suis Vincent?

conorh91

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The restriction on holocaust denial is as I mentioned above, a mark of respect for people who may still be alive.

Just to clarify... you agree with preventing hurt-feelings at the expense of free speech, in certain situations.

correct?

Please don't write an essay, that question is obviously going somewhere.

Mr. Remote Control

Je suis ungree.

Mountainsandh

But exactly Baby Jane, and the claims of hypocrisy are simply not relevant, because the same description of free speech apply in France (as the one you gave).

Free speech is not completely free.

French people have never claimed that free speech was completely free, have they ?

This is the well functioning model that has been followed without too many misshaps since the Republic has been established : free speech, with some reasonable control from the State.

French people have not been promoting a new form of free speech where no restrictions apply, simply to protect the free speech that is currently in place. With restrictions, but not so extensive that you may not caricature religions for fear of your life.

French people by demonstrating are simply stating that they are supporting the law in that satirizing or caricaturing ideologies/religions is acceptable.

On the other hand it is not acceptable by law to deny publicly that a proven historical event has happened, as a mark of respect for people who have lived through that event.

I really don't see the hypocrisy in that, there is a great difference between the two situations, and I haven't personally met any French person who claimed that free speech should be entirely unrestricted.

conorh91

Mr. Remote Control wrote: »

Je suis ungree.

TU ES IVRE

Baby Jane

Mountainsandh wrote: »

But exactly Baby Jane, and the claims of hypocrisy are simply not relevant, because the same description of free speech apply in France (as the one you gave).

Free speech is not completely free.

French people have never claimed that free speech was completely free, have they ?

This is the well functioning model that has been followed without too many misshaps since the Republic has been established : free speech, with some reasonable control from the State.

French people have not been promoting a new form of free speech where no restrictions apply, simply to protect the free speech that is currently in place. With restrictions, but not so extensive that you may not caricature religions for fear of your life.

French people by demonstrating are simply stating that they are supporting the law in that satirizing or caricaturing ideologies/religions is acceptable.

On the other hand it is not acceptable by law to deny publicly that a proven historical event has happened, as a mark of respect for people who have lived through that event.

I really don't see the hypocrisy in that, there is a great difference between the two situations, and I haven't personally met any French person who claimed that free speech should be entirely unrestricted.

But imprisonment though? A blanket banning? That's not reasonable control from the state in my opinion.

Mountainsandh

conorh91 wrote: »

Just to clarify... you agree with preventing hurt-feelings at the expense of free speech, in certain situations.

correct?

Please don't write an essay, that question is obviously going somewhere.

Yes, as the law does.
When the hurt feelings are in relation to something the person has no control over ie colour of skin, race, historical event they were a victim of...

Not when hurt feelings are due to ideology.

Amazingfun

the hurt feelings

boo. hoo.

Mountainsandh

Baby Jane wrote: »

But imprisonment though? A blanket banning? That's not reasonable control from the state in my opinion.

The man is a repeat offender. He should really have got the message by now. It's not a blanket ban, it's a ban on denying the holocaust, or that an event was a crime against humanity. That's pretty specific.

Baby Jane

I agree with you Mountainsandh that people's feelings (due to things like... family members being wiped out via genocide) are important to take into consideration and anyone should bear in mind their audience.

conorh91

Mountainsandh wrote: »

When the hurt feelings are in relation to something the person has no control over ie colour of skin, race, historical event they were a victim of...

Not when hurt feelings are due to ideology.

But you can choose not to be Jewish.

In our eyes* people can elect not to be Muslim or Jewish ... right?

*obviously muslims and jews reject the right to leave the faith

Mountainsandh

conorh91 wrote: »

But you can choose not to be Jewish.

In our eyes* people can elect not to be Muslim or Jewish ... right?

*obviously muslims and jews reject the right to leave the faith

I don't have time to accommodate your very predictable argument drawing parallels between anti semitism and Muslims tonight (work, morning, etc...) quick reminder that he was not jailed for antisemitic rants, but for denying the holocaust was a crime against humanity, and other offences by the way, like unauthorized use of images (recidivist again on that matter).

Big difference between that and drawing a religious figure.

conorh91

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I don't have time to accommodate your very predictable argument drawing parallels between anti semitism and Muslims tonight (work, morning, etc...)

Bed time? Really? How convenient.

But you forgot to answer the question. I am sure you will answer it at the earliest opportunity.

In the eyes of the secular state, one can choose to reject an ideology like Islam, or indeed Judaism.

In relation to holocaust denial, you said, and I quote "hurt feelings are due to ideology"

Now, ideology can be rejected, can it not?

Or is it the case that you believe Islam can be rejected, but Judaism cannot?

Baby Jane

Well it IS nearly 1.30am. I'd consider bedtime a pretty reasonable cause for logging off at this hour!

Tony EH

Baby Jane wrote: »

My view regarding Holocaust denial is that it does not warrant imprisonment, but the proponents of it need to expect a backlash ("free speech" from the other direction).

Agree completely.

The second world war absorbs my life. It has done from a very young age and I've met and talked with many people about their experiences in my time and some of the content I've heard has been a real eyeopener, I can tell you.

Among those people, I have met many with differing views on the holocaust, some of which may be labelled as "holocaust denial", if we were to apply the letter of the law. I put "holocaust denial" in inverted commas, because I believe it to be an artificial construct and something that's used to silence uncomfortable opinion and thought. NOBODY I have ever met has ever said that the series of events we called the holocaust never happened. Not one. Because these people either don't exist, or are so small in number as to be completely negligible.

However, "holocaust denial" laws are in effect and one must be careful of what one says in many parts of Europe. The major problems are thus though. The laws are so elastic that they can be expanded and contracted to include whatever the accuser wishes. So, if someone was to simply say that they believe that the is no proof that there were gas chambers in Auschwitz but there were elsewhere...that, technically, is "holocaust denial" and you can be prosecuted for it. Also, if one was to say that 6 million Jews didn't die during the war, that too, can be constituted as "holocaust denial". Even if we set aside the fact that scholars differ on the number of Jewish casualties all the time, any free thinking person HAS TO BE appalled that such efforts at thought control exist in any, so called, democratic state. Raul Hilberg, who was for a long time the foremost scholar on the holocaust, put the figure at "around 5 million".

Is he a "holocaust denier"?

Holocaust denial laws exist as a way to eliminate potentially distasteful thoughts and opinions. But, what it actually does is simply heighten suspicion in many people as to why they exist at all. Why isn't any other "denial" against the law? If I wish to say that the potato famine never happened, nobody would care. If I wish to say the the Native American Indian wasn't wiped out by white European settlers, it would matter not. Denial of the Armenian genocide during WWI garners little else but debate amongst the circles that would take an interest in such things.

So, where is the problem?

People MUST be allowed to explore their genuine thoughts AND express those thoughts, however uncomfortable they may be and setting laws to effectively try and control thought is an abhorrent construct in any liberal, democratic mind. It goes against the very nature of liberal democracy.

That is not to say that one should be allowed to say "Let's massacre every Muslim in Europe" for example. Such a thing is not "free speech". That's simply unreasonable, unthinking, hatred manifesting itself as words.

However, if someone says they don't believe that gas chambers existed, that should be countered with a "why"...not a potential prison sentence.

Amazingfun

Mountainsandh wrote: »

and other offences by the way, like unauthorized use of images (recidivist again on that matter).

Big difference between that and drawing a religious figure.

Really? Like he ought to serve jail time difference? Do you know that even the prosecutor is saying his sentence is too much? The prosecutor!

Adding more dark hilarity to this mess we learn these precious images were from where? From one Laurent “Riss” Sourisseau of Charlie Hebdo fame. You know, the guys who advocate "free speech" and the right to mock and offend at will. It appears he was.......well, offended. The horror!

On October 13, six months in prison were requested by a prosecutor against Vincent Reynouard following a complaint of cartoonist and director of publication of Charlie Hebdo Laurent Sourisseau says Riss for "counterfeit".

http://free.niooz.fr/six-mois-de-prison-ferme-requis-contre-vincent-reynouard-dans-l-affaire-charlie-hebdo-1894174.shtml

DeadHand

It should be just as legal to deny the Holocaust as it is to publish a picture of Mohammad.

Exactly the same amount of people should die for either act. Zero.

DeadHand

Tony EH wrote: »

"Let's massacre every Muslim in Europe" for example. Such a thing is not "free speech". That's simply unreasonable, unthinking, hatred manifesting itself as words.

Funny you'd pick that example out of any of the hundreds of others you could have.

A great many Muslim clerics call for Sharia law in Europe. With the tacit or active support of a worrying proportion of the rest of the European Muslim population. Under which, homosexuals would be executed automatically, prostitutes similar, apostates similar, those who dissent against Islamic rule similar, women treated as livestock and non-Muslims persecuted officially and comprehensively.

Is that not unreasonable, unthinking, hatred manifesting itself?

Aren't the actually existing persons who harbour and express those opinions far more dangerous than the entirely imaginary people who proclaim "Let's massacre every Muslim in Europe"?

Aren't people who exist inherently more dangerous than those who do not?

Those calling for Sharia law in Europe and the horror that entails for sexual minorities and women enjoy free speech. Anyone denouncing the obvious negative impact Islamic immigration has had on Europe and Islam has had on the world in general will quickly be accused of hate speech.

Seems to me like "free speech" and "hate speech" begin and end depending on who is doing the talking.

K4t

Mountainsandh wrote: »

K4t your remarks about schools are completely and utterly irrelevant to the French situation, where even a display of a religious nature is forbidden ie. a cross on a wall.

There hasn't been religious education in French schools since before my parents' time, and I'm 41.

Understood. My remarks weren't made in relation to the French situation but in the context of a wider argument.

The restriction on holocaust denial is as I mentioned above, a mark of respect for people who may still be alive.

But it's not a mark of respect; it's an embarrassment. Respect for those people is continuing on the ideas of freedom and liberty which have shaped the Western World in the last century, for all people, not just those who share our same beliefs. Reason and logic in the form of overwhelming evidence suggests the Holocaust did exist. The whole world knows this and freedom of speech and expression means this truth continues to become widespread and gospel so to speak. Arresting and imprisoning people because they deny the Holocaust is simply arresting them because you don't like what they believe in or because their beliefs offend people, or because their beliefs defy logic and reason. It's madness. The whole idea of protections of freedom of speech is so guys like that historian's voices are protected in these exact circumstances; when a universal truth is agreed upon and there is one dissenting voice. If Holocaust Denial ever does become the dominant belief and ideology in the Western World in the future, it will be in part due to similar restrictions on free speech, and there might even be people like yourself on boards here arguing that arresting and imprisoning those who advocate the holocaust did exist is a mark of respect to those Nazis soldiers who died fighting honourably for their country.

kowloon

diddley wrote: »

I've never understood the 'don't question the holocaust' approach by some EU countries. I can see that it might protect victims from unnecessary hurt, but why protect something that there's already loads of evidence for? It just fuels right wing extremist propaganda.

Couldn't agree with you more, it gives Neo-nazis the chance to play the persecuted minority. Banning ideas and symbols only grants them more weight.

Amazingfun

kowloon wrote: »

Banning ideas and symbols only grants them more weight.

Why do they continue to do it then?

Tony EH

DeadHand wrote: »

Funny you'd pick that example out of any of the hundreds of others you could have.

Change it to Catholics if you wish. Or Protestants, or Seventh Day Adventists. Whatever floats your boat.

Way to spectacularly miss the actual point though. Top marks there.

DeadHand wrote: »

A great many Muslim clerics call for Sharia law in Europe.

So what. It won't happen. That's a completely moot point.

Also, if said cleric's interpretation of Sharia law means he is actively calling for people to be killed, it's up to the authorities to step in depending on what actions are actually be encouraged.

DeadHand wrote: »

Seems to me like "free speech" and "hate speech" begin and end depending on who is doing the talking.

No. It depends on what is being said.

hatrickpatrick

The establishment bandwagoners speaking recently in support of free speech are not actual free speech advocates. They are advocates of "free speech subject to our conditions and provided you use it in the way we want you to."

As an actual advocate of pure free speech, these bandwagon jumpers make me sick to my stomach. :mad:

Cienciano

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The French being hypocritical?

Sacre bleu!

Who would have thunk it?

It's almost as if "the french" isn't one person, but 65m people with different ideas and beliefs

Mountainsandh

conorh91 wrote: »

Bed time? Really? How convenient.

But you forgot to answer the question. I am sure you will answer it at the earliest opportunity.

In the eyes of the secular state, one can choose to reject an ideology like Islam, or indeed Judaism.

In relation to holocaust denial, you said, and I quote "hurt feelings are due to ideology"

Now, ideology can be rejected, can it not?

Or is it the case that you believe Islam can be rejected, but Judaism cannot?

Apologies for ... having to go to bed.

So, let's cut to the chase.
You were working your way to squeezing me in a corner where anti-semitism would have been paralleled with islamophobia, thereby contradicting the fact that I believe that freedom of expression is ok for ideologies, but not for race/racism.

The definition of antisemitism does not fit the "religion only" label. Hitler did not try to convert Jewish people, he was aiming to exterminate them, to exterminate a race, an ethnicity. Jews were dark haired, brown eyed, with big noses and racial and ethnic features, character traits, and a shared heritage that were described in propaganda textbooks distributed to school children.

Antisemitism according to French law refers to ethnicity and race too, as well as religion. Anti-judaism on the other hand would apply to religion only.

Since the restrictions that apply in France draw the line at racism, it is only fair that an ethnicity or race may be protected. Thus, the expression of antisemitism is an exception to free speech.

Hope that clarifies it.

Can I just add that Charlie Hebdo satire also applied to Jewish people, and cartoons were published depicting Jewish clerics.

Mountainsandh

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The establishment bandwagoners speaking recently in support of free speech are not actual free speech advocates. They are advocates of "free speech subject to our conditions and provided you use it in the way we want you to."

As an actual advocate of pure free speech, these bandwagon jumpers make me sick to my stomach. :mad:

Most nations have restrictions to free speech as far as I know.
Have the U.S. unrestricted free speech laws ? Are there any countries at all with completely unrestricted free speech laws ?

The precept of the French free speech law is that you are entitled to say or publish what you wish, and that censure is applied a posteriori.

That is, make an enlightened choice to speak your mind, but be ready to face the consequences if it is deemed your speech was unlawful.

I think it's a great arrangement for my part.

It leaves plenty of room for the justice system to deliberate on whether a cartoon, or speech, were crossing the line, or not. That's sort of throwing the ball back into people's court : a jury is a fair sample of the population to rely on for a fair judgment on borderline cases, where someone may or may not be deemed to have gone too far.

I grew up in France, and it is not really a bandwagon thing there imo. Free speech and democracy are values angst-ridden teenagers shout back at their parents or friends in an argument. It's part of every day life.

Mountainsandh

Amazingfun wrote: »

Really? Like he ought to serve jail time difference? Do you know that even the prosecutor is saying his sentence is too much? The prosecutor!

Adding more dark hilarity to this mess we learn these precious images were from where? From one Laurent “Riss” Sourisseau of Charlie Hebdo fame. You know, the guys who advocate "free speech" and the right to mock and offend at will. It appears he was.......well, offended. The horror!

Are you suggesting the cartoonist was in the wrong for getting offended by illegal use of his images ?

Of course he ought to serve jail time when he did practically the same thing in the 90s and learnt nothing of his previous conviction.

Are you shocked that the French justice system is more stringent than the Irish one ?
That's unusual, I'm more used to people here feeling desolate at how lenient the system is in Ireland, and at how many "second chances" people are given.

conorh91

I don't enjoy multi-quoting so I'm going to try answer the crux of your post with the least amount possible.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The definition of antisemitism does not fit the "religion only" label. [...] Jews were dark haired, brown eyed, with big noses and racial and ethnic features, character traits, and a shared heritage that were described in propaganda textbooks distributed to school children.

That sounds remarkably identical to Muslims in the Near East.

Antisemitism according to French law refers to ethnicity and race too, as well as religion. Anti-judaism on the other hand would apply to religion only.

Do you know what a semite is?

Most Near-Eastern Muslims are semites, and many Near-Eastern Jews are not. If you believe there is a logical and non-ideological racial distinction between Islam and Judaism, then you are treading a strange, ill-chosen and frankly uninformed pathway to discrediting your own argument. But don't let me stop you when you're defeating yourself. Go right ahead. I'm patient.

Do you believe Semitic Muslims and Semitic Jews are racially or genetically distinct from one another?

Mountainsandh

I can't translate the whole lot for you, but maybe if you use Google translate you will get a close enough idea of the French concept of antisemitism. It is much better explained there than anything I could hope to produce, and it treats of the nuances you refer to.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antis%C3%A9mitisme

Remember please that we are not really talking so much about my opinion on what is or is not antisemitic, and what my concept of islam is, rather about my support for the law in France as it stands as regards freedom of expression, and its exceptions.

Should islam be reconsidered as an ethnicity or a race, well then French laws may be amended (or not) as required.

I would not really suggest to my muslim friends that islam is a race or ethnicity for my part, unless I was feeling like a lengthy discussion and potential argument, but that's only my experience.

edit : paragraph "le terme" is the most relevant.

For those who may not click on the link, my point is that what Conorh91 would like to portray as a pretty straightforward and clear definition of (anti)semitism, is in fact a complex, ambiguous, and equivocal definition. The French have had to choose a definition for the purpose of drafting such laws as freedom of expression, and it refers to race, ethnicity and religion rather than religion alone.
The issue of a potentially similar ambiguity in the definition of islam/islamophobia had not yet arisen when the above law was drafted. It may become a legal concern in the future, who knows.

Amazingfun

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Can I just add that Charlie Hebdo satire also applied to Jewish people, and cartoons were published depicting Jewish clerics.

Yeah.....

Maurice Sinet, 80, who works under the pen name Sine, faces charges of "inciting racial hatred" for a column he wrote last July in the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo. The piece sparked a summer slanging match among the Parisian intelligentsia and ended in his dismissal from the magazine.
"L'affaire Sine" followed the engagement of Mr Sarkozy, 22, to Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, the Jewish heiress of an electronic goods chain. Commenting on an unfounded rumour that the president's son planned to convert to Judaism, Sine quipped: "He'll go a long way in life, that little lad."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html

Mountainsandh

Amazingfun wrote: »

Yeah.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html

Yes.
http://cafecroissant.fr/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/charliehebdo_07fev07.jpg

Remember that Charlie Hebdo were dealing in satire, they mostly knew where the line was as regards what was acceptable, and unacceptable. When they didn't know, they sometimes chanced it, and the law decided.
In this case the head of CH at the time decided Sine had crossed the line.
The same Sine had declared in 1982 on the radio :

« Je suis antisémite depuis qu’Israël bombarde. Je suis antisémite et je n’ai plus peur de l’avouer. Je vais faire dorénavant des croix gammées sur tous les murs… Rue des Rosiers, contre Rosenberg-Goldenberg, je suis pour… On en a plein le cul. Je veux que chaque Juif vive dans la peur, sauf s’il est pro-palestinien… Qu’ils meurent ! Ils me font chier… Ça fait deux mille ans qu’ils nous font chier… ces enfoirés… Il faut les euthanasier… Soi-disant les Juifs qui ont un folklore à la con, à la Chagall de merde… Y a qu’une race au monde… Tu sais que ça se reproduit entre eux, les Juifs… C’est quand même fou… Ce sont des cons congénitaux. »

Which I abstained from translating previously on boards in another thread, and I will do the same here, please use online translator, there is strong language.

Whether Siné was antisemitic as regards the CH affair was rightfully debated in France. He had thread a very fine line.
As an aside, Charlie Hebdo were condemned specifically for announcing his dismissal before he was told in person, and not giving him notice as the law requires.

hatrickpatrick

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Most nations have restrictions to free speech as far as I know.
Have the U.S. unrestricted free speech laws ? Are there any countries at all with completely unrestricted free speech laws ?

Free speech and democracy are values angst-ridden teenagers shout back at their parents or friends in an argument. It's part of every day life.

Sometimes they're genuinely held values which people believe are integral to living in a free, socially libertarian society.

CJ Haughey

Je suis aime chips cheese and garlic mayonnaise.

Mountainsandh

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sometimes they're genuinely held values which people believe are integral to living in a free, socially libertarian society.

Exactly. That's the case in France. Except said teenagers and most people are aware of and OK with racism, inciting hatred/murder, and advice on how to kill yourself being out of bounds.

Just like here, there is a blasphemy law people are aware of, but Irish people would probably say that overall Ireland enjoys free speech too. Is that hypocritical ?

Would someone in Ireland be free to publish a book or hold a seminar on ways to kill yourself ?
That's one of the restrictions on free speech laws in France, not sure if that's the case here.
Should people be entitled to hold such a seminar so in your opinion ? not in mine, I'm happy with some restrictions to freedom of speech.

I think most French people would say they live in a libertarian society, despite the restrictions above. I guess by shouting high and loud "Je suis Charlie" they wanted to highlight and protect that.

The restrictions are not hypocritical as stated in OP, they're just... normal. And not massively restrictive really.

Again, things might change too as the years go and shared heritage changes. Just like the blasphemy law here is subjected to debate.

Amazingfun

there is a blasphemy law people are aware of, but Irish people would probably say that overall Ireland enjoys free speech too. Is that hypocritical ?

I've yet to meet anyone who thinks this anything but an embarrassment/shameful law and wants it repealed as soon as possible.

Mountainsandh

Amazingfun wrote: »

I've yet to meet anyone who thinks this anything but an embarrassment/shameful law and wants it repealed as soon as possible.

Of course, because society evolves.
Would you say so, that Ireland does not enjoy free speech overall ?
That there is no free speech here ?

Letree

Je suis Marine Le Pen, the woman who is going to turn the tide of madness in Europe.

reprise

Amazingfun wrote: »

I've yet to meet anyone who thinks this anything but an embarrassment/shameful law and wants it repealed as soon as possible.

I meet few people who are aware it exists.

Amazingfun

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Of course, because society evolves.
Would you say so, that Ireland does not enjoy free speech overall ?
That there is no free speech here ?

What is your point? This thread was to share the news that France, a nation who proudly marched in the hundreds of thousands to champion "free speech" and the right to of Charlie Hebdo to offend, has recently sentenced a man who offended others in prison for 2 years. That's it.

Amazingfun

reprise wrote: »

I meet few people who are aware it exists.

Really? I am surprised. Most I meet know about if only in an offhand way.

What do these people say when you inform them of its existence? Can't imagine they're delighted

Mountainsandh

Amazingfun wrote: »

What is your point? This thread was to share the news that France, a nation who proudly marched in the hundreds of thousands to champion "free speech" and the right to of Charlie Hebdo to offend, has recently sentenced a man who offended others in prison for 2 years. That's it.

I give up. Reread previous posts for my point.

Amazingfun

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I give up. Reread previous posts for my point.

There genuinely doesn't seem to be a relevant one.

You are comparing the situation in France (where people really are being placed in prison for offending others via speech) with Ireland, where so far (thank goodness), no one has been placed in prison under the Blasphemy Law.

Amazingfun

You wrote this earlier:

Most nations have restrictions to free speech as far as I know.
Have the U.S. unrestricted free speech laws ?

Generally Yes. Free Speech is protected by the 1st Amendment with a few exceptions dealing mainly with obscenity/child pornography/imminent violence. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

Mountainsandh

Amazingfun wrote: »

You wrote this earlier:



Generally Yes. Free Speech is protected by the 1st Amendment with a few exceptions dealing mainly with obscenity/child pornography/imminent violence. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

With a few exceptions...

Just like in Ireland. Oh, and France.

These exceptions are law.
When people break the law they face legal sanctions. Like a jail term.

OP : it's hypocritical to imprison someone for saying something when you claim to have free speech (with exceptions).
Me : "something" was part of the exceptions to free speech, therefore illegal, therefore deserving of sanction.
Not hypocritical, predictable more so.

Just like here in Ireland, where a person may be legally sanctioned for blasphemy.

Don't think I can simplify further, so I do really give up if you don't get that.

Amazingfun

Mountainsandh wrote: »

With a few exceptions...

Just like in Ireland. Oh, and France.

These exceptions are law.
When people break the law they face legal sanctions. Like a jail term.

OP : it's hypocritical to imprison someone for saying something when you claim to have free speech (with exceptions).
Me : "something" was part of the exceptions to free speech, therefore illegal, therefore deserving of sanction.
Not hypocritical, predictable more so.

Just like here in Ireland, where a person may be legally sanctioned for blasphemy.

Don't think I can simplify further, so I do really give up if you don't get that.

Vincent Reynouard wouldn't face prosecution for his speech in the USA or Ireland.
And again: France made a massive show of supposed support for "free speech" and the right to offend. Yet when feelings of certain others are hurt a man is sentenced to prison. This is hypocrisy on a major scale and you've said absolutely nothing to change that.

The exceptions to free speech in the USA don't pertain to "offending" or "hurting the feelings" of anyone, but specifically address the few areas I've already outlined above.

osarusan

Amazingfun wrote: »

Vincent Reynouard wouldn't face prosecution for his speech in the USA or Ireland.
And again: France made a massive show of supposed support for "free speech" and the right to offend. Yet when feelings of certain others are hurt a man is sentenced to prison. This is hypocrisy on a major scale and you've said absolutely nothing to change that.

The exceptions to free speech in the USA don't pertain to "offending" or "hurting the feelings" of anyone, but specifically address the few areas I've already outlined above.

Like everywhere, France's free speech laws have exceptions. Perhaps their laws are more restrictive than some other countries? Fine, if that's how they want it.

They supported free speech (under their legislation) when people were being attacked for speech/content which was considered legal in France.

Then they imprisoned a guy for breaking their laws on free speech.

If the French had support "Free Speech - according to our legislation" there would be no reason for you to comment on their 'hypocrisy'?

I don't really understand the point you are trying to make, except if it to point out that France's free speech laws are more restrictive than some other countries.

Mountainsandh

Amazingfun wrote: »

Vincent Reynouard wouldn't face prosecution for his speech in the USA or Ireland.
And again: France made a massive show of supposed support for "free speech" and the right to offend. Yet when feelings of certain others are hurt a man is sentenced to prison. This is hypocrisy on a major scale and you've said absolutely nothing to change that.

The exceptions to free speech in the USA don't pertain to "offending" or "hurting the feelings" of anyone, but specifically address the few areas I've already outlined above.

I don't think we can discuss any further, you are reverting to semantics you seem to think are convincing and refusing to understand something very basic. That's ok, carry on.

Amazingfun

You may see this as France merely having "more restrictive" laws on free speech, but I (and others) find it hypocritical and pathetic to rank the "hurt feelings" of one group over another. This is the Victim Olympics in action and in France apparently only one group's feelings "win" the Gold Medal by having the arm of the State imprisoning their opponents.

osarusan

Amazingfun wrote: »

You may see this as France merely having "more restrictive" laws on free speech, but I (and others) find it hypocritical and pathetic to rank the "hurt feelings" of one group over another. This is the Victim Olympics in action and in France apparently only one group's feelings "win" the Gold Medal by having the arm of the State imprisoning their opponents.

Why don't you tell us who these 'certain others', and 'group' is?

Amazingfun

osarusan wrote: »

Why don't you tell us who these 'certain others', and 'group' is?

Have you not read the thread? Or did you just jump in here at the end?
Your comments make far more sense if that's the case.

Mountainsandh

osarusan wrote: »

Like everywhere, France's free speech laws have exceptions. Perhaps their laws are more restrictive than some other countries? Fine, if that's how they want it.

They supported free speech (under their legislation) when people were being attacked for speech/content which was considered legal in France.

Then they imprisoned a guy for breaking their laws on free speech.

If the French had support "Free Speech - according to our legislation" there would be no reason for you to comment on their 'hypocrisy'?

I don't really understand the point you are trying to make, except if it to point out that France's free speech laws are more restrictive than some other countries.

Possibly, and the legal system is probably less lenient.
It would be pretty much normal and predictable that a person here breaking the blasphemy law may not face prison, but the French system has its own standards and scale.