Je suis Vincent?

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.

osarusan

Amazingfun wrote: »

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.

I've read the thread (my first post in it was more than 2 days ago) - you seem to be dancing around actually naming the group who have the 'Gold Medal' power to get others imprisoned.

Mountainsandh

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.

Hypocritical is not the appropriate word though, and the OP could be rephrased to simply state that in the opinion of some, the exceptions to free speech in France are unfair and obsolete, and do not fit the ideal of free speech according to poster X/you/Irish people.

That would be a perfectly valid point to make. Hypocrisy for applying the law, no.

K4t

Mountainsandh wrote: »

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.

There is a monumental difference in the restrictions on free speech the US has (e.g. fighting words, imminent danger) compared to for example the blasphemy law in Ireland and the Holocaust denial laws in France. The 1st amendment protects religious freedom of belief by explicitly not giving it special protection under the law through something ridiculous like a blasphemy law. The same applies to Holocaust Denial. By making speech in favour of holocaust denial illegal, you are not protecting anybody who isn't already protected by the law in a free society, but you are taking away fundamental liberties of those who choose to believe in something different than the majority. That is unforgivable. You are taking away not just the freedom of the individual who is arrested, but the freedom of all people.

Amazingfun

osarusan wrote: »

I've read the thread (my first post in it was more than 2 days ago) - you seem to be dancing around actually naming the group who have the 'Gold Medal' power to get others imprisoned.

There hasn't been dancing of any sort. What is it you're unclear about?
You understand Vincent Reynouard is a Holocaust Revisionist / dissident Historian? He's been prosecuted under the (allegedly unconstitutional) "Gayssot" laws?

osarusan

Amazingfun wrote: »

You understand Vincent Reynouard is a Holocaust Revisionist / dissident Historian? He's been prosecuted under the (allegedly unconstitutional) "Gayssot" laws?

I do understand that.

I have no problem with laws regarding Holocaust denial/revision.

In my first post in this thread I argued why I think the 'put it out there for everybody to see its stupidity' approach doesn't always work.

Amazingfun

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Hypocritical is not the appropriate word though

Yes it is the right word and is exactly why I chose it. You are free to disagree.

Amazingfun

osarusan wrote: »

I have no problem with laws regarding Holocaust denial/revision.

Yes, that much is obvious. What is not so obvious is what you hope to achieve by putting such people in prison cells.

Mountainsandh

K4t wrote: »

There is a monumental difference in the restrictions on free speech the US has (e.g. fighting words, imminent danger) compared to for example the blasphemy law in Ireland and the Holocaust denial laws in France. The 1st amendment protects religious freedom of belief by explicitly not giving it special protection under the law through something ridiculous like a blasphemy law. The same applies to Holocaust Denial. By making speech in favour of holocaust denial illegal, you are not protecting anybody who isn't already protected by the law in a free society, but you are taking away fundamental liberties of those who choose to believe in something different than the majority. That is unforgivable. You are taking away not just the freedom of the individual who is arrested, but the freedom of all people.

And that would be a great point to argue, except that it still does not make the French any more hypocritical for defending their interpretation of free speech as it legally stands.

I'm pretty sure a great number of French people would agree with these points, or consider them very worthy of discussion. When they marched and called themselves Charlie though, they were mourning and expressing support for free speech laws as they stand. There's a time for everything.

French people like to analyse and criticize laws too, these debates are nothing new.

Mountainsandh

Amazingfun wrote: »

Yes it is the right word and is exactly why I chose it. You are free to disagree.

Ok knock yourself out.

K4t

osarusan wrote: »

In my first post in this thread I argued why I think the 'put it out there for everybody to see its stupidity' approach doesn't always work.

Don't you see, nobody should get to decide that in a free society! Any other way is totalitarianism, plain and simple. What makes the 1st amendment the great piece of legislation it is, is that something similar in Europe would specifically be designed to protect the voice of the Holocaust Denier, and the voices of those who were imprisoned for condoning and supporting the Charlie Hebdo attacks!

They say, all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Imprisoning those who express contrary beliefs to the State or the majority, no matter what those beliefs are or no matter how radical or unfounded they may be, is closer to allowing evil to triumph than any other intended purpose. It is just wrong. How do I know it is wrong? Because nobody gets to say it is right. Nobody should get to have that power. It's Orwellian in the extreme and it's downright dangerous.

Tony EH

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.

Who's "they"? I don't remember any referendum being put to the people of France.

osarusan

K4t wrote: »

Don't you see, nobody should get to decide that in a free society! Any other way is totalitarianism, plain and simple. What makes the 1st amendment the great piece of legislation it is, is that something similar in Europe would specifically be designed to protect the voice of the Holocaust Denier, and the voices of those who were imprisoned for condoning and supporting the Charlie Hebdo attacks!

I don't agree that there should be a piece of legislation specifically designed to protect the voice of the Holocaust denier.

Tony EH wrote: »

Who's "they"? I don't remember any referendum being put to the people of France.

If that's how they want it.

If they don't want it that way, they can campaign to have it changed.

I would be fine with that also.

Amazingfun

Originally Posted by osarusan
I have no problem with laws regarding Holocaust denial/revision.

I've asked a few times now but those in favour of imprisonment for Holocaust revisionists (etc) never answer what they think they are accomplishing by putting these people in prison.

Vincent Reynouard is effectively destitute. He is being blacklisted and prevented from working. What threat does such a man pose? What does having a broke man (married with eight children, btw) placed in a prison cell for 2 years achieve?

If such actions make him a sympathetic figure, a "free-speech martyr", why do they do it?

osarusan

Amazingfun wrote: »

I've asked a few times now but those in favour of imprisonment for Holocaust revisionists (etc) never answer what they think they are accomplishing by putting these people in prison.

I'm not altogether in favour of imprisoning them, but the law is fairly toothless is there is in effect no punishment for breaking the law.

Let's not kid ourselves - this stuff can be very inflammatory, and is often designed to be inflammatory. Reynouard knows what he's doing is illegal, and it wouldn't surprise me whatsoever if he's the one who wants to be a martyr. He would not be the first person to break the law and paint himself as a victim of injustice to further a cause.

Perhaps putting them in prison will result in them ceasing to disseminate inflammatory material about holocaust denial (as it did, temporarily at least, in the case of David Irving).

K4t

osarusan wrote: »

I don't agree that there should be a piece of legislation specifically designed to protect the voice of the Holocaust denier.

You misunderstood my point; It means that that voice receives equal protection under the law! Not more, not less, not none at all! Equal! Equal to all those voices acknowledging the holocaust and condemning it as an atrocity!

K4t

osarusan wrote: »

I'm not altogether in favour of imprisoning them

How considerate of you..

but the law is fairly toothless is there is in effect no punishment for breaking the law.

The law is absolutely wrong. It's astonishing that you and so many others cannot see this. You are so caught up in your own certainty concerning the Holocaust that it prevents you from seeing the wider picture.

Amazingfun

Now now...if we a truly believed "inflammatory speech" a crime there ought to be a hell of a lot more people imprisoned, don't you think?

As for imagining Vincent Reynouard somehow enjoying a life of crushing poverty, constant death threats and facing harassment from the State on a continual basis, well, I don't buy that for a second. He does this because he believes he is right and that these laws are unjust.

Further, David Irving appears to be disseminating his work in the same way he pretty much always has: http://www.fpp.co.uk/ , so can't see much of a victory there.

I'm not altogether in favour of imprisoning them

Well I am pleased to learn you're not an imprisonment enthusiast afterall!

osarusan

K4t wrote: »

The law is absolutely wrong.

Fair enough.That is obviously your opinion.

I don't share it.

Tony EH

osarusan wrote: »

If that's how they want it.

If they don't want it that way, they can campaign to have it changed.

I would be fine with that also.

Who's going to risk their job/career/status etc campaigning against that? One can only imagine the furor that would occur if someone was to try an organise a campaign of that sort. They'd be branded "anti-Semites" before they could finish their first protest chant.

No. What SHOULD have happened was that such a law like "holocaust denial"

a) Should never have been allowed to get beyond idea stage in a liberal democracy

and

b) If it was pushed as a serious proposal, put to the people of the country to decide if it was to go through.

osarusan

Amazingfun wrote: »

As for imagining Vincent Reynouard somehow enjoying a life of crushing poverty, constant death threats and facing harassment from the State on a continual basis, well, I don't buy that for a second. He does this because he believes he is right and that these laws are unjust.

If he wants to continue to do it and live like that, he can do so.

Amazingfun wrote: »

Further, David Irving appears to be disseminating his work in the same way he pretty much always has: http://www.fpp.co.uk/ , so can't see much of a victory there.

Irving did indeed change his tune, at least for a while.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm

He admitted that in 1989 he had denied that Nazi Germany had killed millions of Jews. He said this is what he believed, until he later saw the personal files of Adolf Eichmann, the chief organiser of the Holocaust. "I said that then based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that anymore and I wouldn't say that now," Irving told the court.
"The Nazis did murder millions of Jews."
In the past, he had claimed that Adolf Hitler knew little, if anything, about the Holocaust, and that the gas chambers were a hoax.