lol
what an imbecile comment to make.
You can't go around saying shit like this. Is just hate and fascist shit.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Jean-Marie Le Pen has been fined 30,000 euros over Nazi gas chambers talk.
- Thread starter BY2K
- Start date
- Status
lol
what an imbecile comment to make.
You can't go around saying shit like this. Is just hate and fascist shit.
You really think that now, when Trump is on the rise? A guy who promotes torture, has no problem killing certain families, wants to ban certain groups from USA and he has been the leading candidate of republicans, a party who normally gets close to 50% of the vote.
If anything is shown with Trump is that your theory is the other way around....USA is a boiling pot that's about to blow off. People are literally being assaulted at trump rallies and getting kicked out.
Your whole post is completely wrong. And we fear our government so much that each EU citizen has a gun or two in their home....
Got any proof of that, or is that just your BS being thrown about?
That's like me saying, USA is proud of their genocide against native Americans and their hunting of black people. Maybe that's why Trump is becoming so popular now. Back to nostalgic days right?
No. The state has given him a massive fine with the threat of imprisonment if he doesn't pay. That's not freedom of speech. What you just said is so non applicable to this situation and so ignorant of what freedom of speech even means I'm actually quite taken aback.
The judiciary does approve them. The Constitutional Council in the case of France does decide this law didn't break any other laws. A bit like the Supreme Court in the United States can do. For instance, let's take the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. Bush signed a law saying you can't lie about having a military medal. Holocaust denial was fine, claiming you have a medal not. Supreme Court decided six years later that was not in line with the free speech amendment. Although they could not agree on why. For instance, Kennedy found the law was too broad. The result is that there is now a law that allows you to lie about medals in private environments but not in public if you want to benefit from it.
Onlinehero
Member
Uh, what. Breivik bombed a government building, his main rethoric is accusing the government and politicians of treason through multiculturalism, and he specifically targeted the youth department of the ruling party with his killings. It was a direct attack on the government.
He spent quite a bit of time on that multiculturalism, his attack on government buildings was because of their multiculturalism culture. You can't deny multiculturalism is his enemy. But yeah, in any case, he is still a small drop compared to the number of American militias.
Being honest: I'm more afraid of your government that any within the EU.
Frankfurter
Member
I'm pretty sure we are going in circles here, but anyway. Every country in the world limits freedom of speech - the US included. Now the question is at what point do you limit it. Europe apparently limits it at points like hate speech, while the US limits it once it's a direct threat to someone. Either way, freedom of speech isn't unlimited, pretty much all human rights aren't (see: right to live vs. execution in the US).
Pretty much.
So many oppositions here claiming that this law goes to far and restricts freedom of speech. This literally is a hypocritical stance because you get punished for inciting violence in America.
They say "of course it's illegal because of the danger it puts people in"
The only difference here is that we apply it to literally one of the worst atrocities that EVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE.
If you honestly think it's ok to try to deny it, you just show disrespect to the MILLIONS that suffered and died. I have bloody family members alive that risked their lives hiding people during the holocaust and you think it's ok that some people just claim it didn't happen?
This isn't about free speech, this is about remembering what happened! This is about making sure we never forget what WE LET HAPPEN and dos to our own man!
The word genocide was literally invented because of what happened!
As an American so am I, which is EXACTLY why free speech is so important.
Yeah a whole bowl of nope...and to your last comment...the Armenians would like to have a word with you
I know exactly what happens to them. If you actually look it up you would see that the word did get invented for the trials after WWII.
And good counter point of nope
very insightful.A Link to the Past
Banned
I can definitely see why European countries are very, very cautious about Holocaust denial, since the Holocaust represents one of (if not the) greatest human atrocities we have ever seen. Thus, the countries would naturally be very strict about people denying its existence in order to ensure that it can't be repeated or forgotten.
Pretty much, it's the adage of "if you do not learn from the past, you are doomed to repeat it".
Why take very rare exemples and make them the rules? Breivik does not represent Norway at all probably. I'm not Norwegian but I do hope he does not. And aren't north countries some of the most socialist out there, meaning the government is pretty involved in the citizens life?
Isis is religious and terrorism matter I don't see how it even relates to this problem at all. They did not attack the government out of fear or anger on how they are managing the country.
And it's peachy to see an American talking about the rise of extremism in Europe and not in the US when your news feed is being monopolized by Trump.
Big news for you, he is on par with Le Pen and any other extremist party in Europe easily, don't delude yourself.
Like we didn't evolved or learn, and as a French, if you want to be "historical" I can also say we are the country of revolution so no I don't really fear my government.
Government involvement in my life also bring me a lot of relief and privileges. For example, the best social security in the world that make any french people (and a lot of European whose government also interact in their life) basically stress free when it comes money/ being taken care of if you have either a simple flu or a very very serious disease..
Something the paranoia US citizens have against the government make almost impossible.
We just believe that hate speech is detrimental to the targeted group life and thus that your total freedom of speech is overshadowing their freedom of life/life without harm/to be. Which cannot be tolerated when someone's freedom stops where another one's start.
You seem to believe words are harmless, while we consider that word can influence people easily enough to cause great harm (and history has proven so). So when you are advocating violence against a group of people (even more so when said group has already suffered enormous casualties because of hate speech) we simply cannot let it stand. And it's the government's job to care for the well being of all it's citizens so it's normal it should react.
Let's not limit it to Trump. Think of all the bullshit that goes down in different US states, particular, but not limited to where republicans rule.
Has been said several times already, but nobody here is "ok" with Holocaust denial.
The manner in which it gets culled on punished, is where the dissent is.
Also, this absolutely is about free speech, as you can remember and be sure no one forgets about the Holocaust, even without having fines or jail time to enforce said memory.
Plenty of countries that do not have fines in place, still remember and are aware of the magnitude and importance of the Holocaust.
A Link to the Past
Banned
I am legitimately curious about whether data exists that would allow us to see whether Holocaust denial correlates with the level of punishment for Holocaust denial.
Once again my point is that the American standard also limits "free speech" tocalls to violence. We limit I it to Denying one of the greatest atrocities that ever happened in mankind.
Yes plenty of countries don't have fines in place, if their people are ok with that, I'm not one to judge. Placing an ethnocentric view on the world is when problems start.
That's a different point from the one that I was replying to. The person I am replying to says that in this particular case he does have freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequences of that speech. This is an absurd argument to apply to this case. The 'freedom from consequences' line is typically used when someone is legitimately able to say something without the state clamping down on them, but complains about being criticized by other citizens.
It's one of those laws that isn't enforced, but still hasn't been struck off. I linked to a piece on it a page or two back. The comedian, Mark Thomas, wrote to Buckingham Palace to ask if he could walk past and envisage the end of the monarchy (since its technically illegal to even think about it) and they said that he couldn't.
You mean Trump? Because, yes, you are correct. Trump is not a political leader. He is a civilian running for office.
And Le Pen is a guy that got fired by his own daughter. If you run for office, you're just as much a politician. Just not a career politician.
Trump is on the rise with a dwindling portion of the U.S. He's taking the Republican Southern Strategy to it's logical conclusion, and in doing so is more than likely going to destroy the Republican party. You're buying into the media hype than actually seeing what the reality of the situation is. If Trump is the Republican nominee he will get absolutely annihilated in the general election. The demographics in the U.S. no longer favor racists of any kind winning the presidency. It's easy for non Americans to look at the media and think Trump is an actual legitimate candidate with a real shot, but that just isn't true. For example Trump needs 7 out of 10 white male voters to vote for him in the general election in order to win the presidency. It simply is not going to happen. He is toxic with minorities, and with the current demographics being the way it is in the U.S. if you don't have the minority vote you will not win the presidency period. What you are seeing with Trump now is quite possibly the death throes of the Republican party.
I see you and some other posters making the same mistake. Do not take what the U.S. media spews as the current reality of the situation. Trump does not have a chance of winning the presidency. Again he's going after a dwindling portion of the U.S. population. The media is always going to get the juiciest stories and play the headlines up. The reality is that the U.S. is progressively going further to the left. This is mainly because of the demographic shifts in the U.S. The U.S. is slowly working it's way to becoming a minority majority country. Obviously this is angering the racist segment of the population, and Trump is tapping into that. Make no mistake about it though that portion of the U.S. is getting smaller, and their stranglehold on U.S. policy is coming to an end. You also have to remember that Trump is doing well in the Republican primaries. This cannot be stressed enough. The primaries are a much different beast than the general election. The media paints a much different picture than the current reality, and it's easy to buy into their bullshit. Especially if you are not from the U.S. and are accustomed to said bullshit.
Edit: Really it's just the end of the Republican Southern Strategy i.e. pander to racists in order to court their votes. The problem is that racists now account for much less of the overall vote and that tactic will no longer work.
crazygambit
Member
I had actually already read you latter link since it had been posted in a thread about a DJ playing Fuck the Police while the police was shutting down a bar for overcrowding. I still think it's a pretty easy and fast way to convey the message even if it isn't 100% correct.
You seem awfully sure of yourself.
We'll see, but if Trump get the Rep. nomination, he'll imo do at least 40%. Which is more than any far right party has made in Europe for ages (... well, Berlusconi did happen though). And that's while being even more far right than most far right parties over here.
And it's nice saying that US politics are starting to lean more to the left, but you do know that what is supposed to be your left party (Democrates) are somewhere between the right and center-right in Europe, right?
Rep. in the last couple decade would be considered hardcore extreme right in most of Europe, and they played a major role in US politics. So please refrain from pointing fingers on the (very real) right push in Europe, and how far right may start to play a role in EU politics, when the far right (from EU point of view) has been actually governing in a lot of places in the US for years. And have managed to make the government stop working for three fucking years.
Abinash117
Member
What makes the democrats an extreme right party in Europe?
Typo, meant center-right (or however you call it in the US).
You need to reread my post because you missed my point entirely. I'm not talking at all about the politics in the EU. What I am talking about are people pointing at the media in the U.S. as if they are showing an accurate reflection of what is actually happening. Please read this Donald Trump Needs 7 of 10 White Guys it will be eye opening on his chances.
Spoiler alert they aren't very good.
This is what the GOP had to say after the 2012 election
My point is not to use what the U.S. media is portraying about Trump. It doesn't reflect the reality of the situation. In reality what you are seeing are the results of Republicans pandering to racists for the last 40+ years in order to win elections. Trump is just the logical conclusion of that pandering. He took their strategy farther than anyone before him, and is now testing the absolute limits of the strategy. The U.S. is moving towards the left, but the process is going to be slow. You can't simply expect the U.S. to be as left as Europe right now especially given the strategy Republicans have used for the last 40 years to garner votes and win elections. What you are seeing now are the growing pains of the U.S. moving more towards the left. My main point is to distrust anything the U.S media is spewing at you. For the most part it's all bullshit to generate views, and push their own agendas.
They are portraying Trump as the rise of the far right extremist in the U.S. when it's the exact opposite. It's the destruction of the Republican party, and fall of that type of thinking. The tea party movement in the U.S. was the signal for the end of the Republican party as we know it. It forced them to pander to racists in a way that would make it impossible for them to recover in the future due to the demographic shift in the U.S. The Southern strategy is dead in the U.S. in terms of winning the presidency. If I seem so sure of myself it's because all the trends and the data have been pointing to this. Even the Republican party knows this, and said as much in their post-mortem. They know if they don't change the Republican party is fucked in the U.S. The U.S. though faces other real problems moving forward such as gerrymandering which has allowed the Republicans to control the House even with the current demographics. The long lasting changes will happen once the districts in the U.S. are redrawn.
This fact simply reinforces my support for freedom of speech. Why on earth would I want to start banning hate speech when there is a very real possibility of Republicans taking power and getting to decide on what constitutes hate? What happens when they decide that support for gay rights is hateful? What happens to the next similar movement that begins as an unpopular idea?
I find hate speech laws to be very near sighted.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
what about 70 years is near sighted? That's between 2 and 3 generations.
Your initial remark that started the responses was, and I quote, "It's in the Europe that extremist parties and the likes are on the significant rise, not the US."
My (not well explained) response, is: sure, it isn't on the rise in the US, because the Republican party, more or less half of US politics,majority in senate and half the states, is really not far away from what we in the EU call extremist party. Especially in the last decade. It couldn't go up much more without the US going full fascist.
And I hope for you you are right with your analysis. One year ago, I'd have agreed. After seeing trump rocking the rep. primaries, not so much. I know it's only primaries, but with the way your bipartisanship works...
Wait & See, but as I already said, I honestly see Trump getting at least 40% votes (if he makes it to the election), which is worrisome. Edit: to illustrate that: when Le Pen, the french equivalent of Trump the topic was initially about, reached the last turn of presidential election in 2002, he was destroyed (18% vs 82%). And that was against a mildly unpopular opposition, Chirac. How much do you want to bet Trump gets at least double as much votes?
I don't think you can really pin those things on freedom of speech. It's a cute narrative but I'm not really sure it holds water.
I see the confusion Jigsaw you are confusing my post with Ether_Snakes post. I was just responding to a couple of people using the U.S. media as proof that Trump is on the rise.
Japanese concentration camps in the US
Andrew Jackson, genocide of Native Americans . Black communities firebombed for being successful (look up Black Wall Street)
George Washington is literally our Eternal General and has a rank exclusive to him that he got in 1976 that outranks all living military members.
That may be true over the long term (I don't know the situation well enough to have an opinion), but the effects of large amounts hate speech in a short period of time (e.i Trump), can already be seen and the effects it has had on his chances of being the republican nominee.
Before going full on crazy with his hate, he was nowhere in the polls. As soon as he went with the hate speeches, he shoot up to be a leader in the nominee race. Others slightly more sane people, who never joined with the hate speech, dropped like a stone from the race.
You can spin the reports any way you want, the fact is Republicans have always been a racists party deep in their hearts over the decades and have won multiple elections in the past, as they surely will in the future.
Man, sorry, my bad... I should work less, I'm getting tired.
So yeah, I actually more or less agree with you, lol. Just not on the extend of the push to the left. But hopefully for the US (and the world honestly) a last fail election will definitively mean the end of the republican party and a serious push left to offset the strong right drift of the last couple decades.
But the slippery slope is a fallacy.
Riposte
Member
It is 0% correct in many of the scenarios the analogy it is used for, with the one that created it being a perfect example of that misuse. It also doesn't apply for holocaust denial or similar remarks. It is more incorrect than correct.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
The US is literally running an offshore prison, filled with prisoners that never faced a proper trial and for a long time didn't even release the names of the inmates.
I really wouldn't push that angle, let's not even talk about the patriot act.
These are pretty bad responses, and trying to compare Japanese internment to the death of millions of Jews, gays, and dissenters is just crass.
It makes one disillusioned with some of the principals that we want to hold so dear, in that maybe humanity can't handle that.
Especially when our country compromises there, in which case we may as well grill these fools if they're doing so from at least the position of being in the news or being a politician.
I'm not comparing death counts, I'm showing we've had our share of fucked up shit and despots and genocide even with Free Speech(tm) in place.
When tons of asian americans were having their homes and lives stolen from them and put into concentration camps (fuck the softwording "internment camp"), they also had their free speech rights removed, and anyone that spoke against it didn't have much of a good day either. When black americans didn't want to bother anyone but the nearby white population massacred them for daring to be successful, everyone pretended it didn't happen until ten years ago. Neither the first or second amendments have been the supposed safety gasket they are claimed to be.
No worries I've done the same exact thing. That's the hope at least. If the Republican party implodes U.S. may actually make real inroads shifting to the left, but that's not guaranteed. Country still has a very large conservative population.
What I'm telling you is that this strategy is known and even has a name. It's called the southern strategy. Started by Nixon perfected by Reagan. Even the GOP acknowledges it has to change that strategy or they will not win any more elections.
I'm going to repost this because it's an incredibly important point. This was after the loss in 2012 for the GOP. They can see exactly what is coming up in their future and it's not looking good.
It's them coming out and saying they have to stop being racists without actually saying it. They know due to the demographics it's a failed strategy moving forward. Why do you think the GOP establishment is trying to hard right now to stop Trump? They would rather have a brokered convention that would fracture the GOP base rather than allow him to be the nominee. Think about that for a second. They would rather completely ignore the will of their voters because if Trump is the nominee the long term damage would be massive. Once they go down this path the bell cannot be unrung.
They know that if he is the nominee they will lose minority voters particularly hispanic voters for generations.The Republican party is not stupid. Although, they are bananas. They know they are fucked if they don't change, but they are so fractured at the moment that it's going to be impossible to do that. No chance of convincing those racists voters to go for something like immigration reform after years of pushing racist bullshit. The future does not look bright for the Republicans. The republican elites know this, and are desperately trying to find a way to stop Trump because of this. The southern strategy is a loosing strategy. You can no longer court racists voters in the U.S. and win the presidency. That's the point. It used to work it no longer does, and now Trump is the logical conclusion of that strategy.
Edit: Forgot to mention this primaries are far far different from the general. The strategy from the Republicans in a primary is to be just racist enough to court the racist voters, but then go more towards the center in the general. Trump just went farther right than anyone in the GOP was willing to go, and he hit a certain very vocal segment of the GOP base. Disenfranchised white voters who feel like they have been abandoned by their party. Like I said it works for the primaries, but will absolutely get you killed in the general. They are simple not enough racist white voters in the U.S. for Trump to win a general election. That's why Trump is faltering right now to get the necessary votes to be the nominee, and it's looking increasingly likely that there will be a brokered convention. That strategy is over moving into the future. It's a loosing strategy now.
GhostTrick
Banned
Thank god it isnt. That's why we dont have joke elections where the potential next president is a clown saying non-sense.
Freedom of speech has limits and it's a good thing. I don't like that people can express racist opinions.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
The government doesn't set the laws, the parliament does. The government merely propose them.
But then how do you know if somebody is really racist?I mean I'd rather know than not know because somebody isn't allowed to say it. This way I can avoid these people. Most of the world now knows Trump is a racist buffoon, if there was any doubt before.
Spuck-uk
Banned
So, Trump and Cruz?
- Status