Support NeoGAF

[Mael]

Yes it is, but what I mean is that the term is subject to interpretations. Its definition is subjective, even if it's well established now.
It's not a problem presently because it's well regulated, but under a more extreme government, say a conservative religious one, it might be abused to punish blasphemy.(only an example)
I admit we're far from that case now, and that it's better than have no regulations, but i can conceive it raise concerns.

That can't happen here since the justice system is (supposedly) separate from the legislative/executive body.
A recent law was struck down by the constitutional council because it changed how the law was interpreted regarldless of precedent.
Considering we've got more than enough precedent regarding hate speech that's not happening till a change of constitution at least.

 

[Angry Fork]

France being bastion of liberty and freedom continues. I hope they start kicking out atheist for anti-clerical remarks and christians for anti gay remarks.

Getting rid of religious fundamentalists IS defending freedom and liberty.

 

[Mercury Fred]

I imagine you have a much different opinion on this limit on free speech, despite it being almost the exact same lever, pulled for a slightly different purpose. Ban all the people who don't agree with how I see things!

Hate speech shouldn't be protected under the law. Poor comparison.

 

[Quixzlizx]

What I mean is that we're entitled to freedom of speech and any laws or regulations to instigate thought crime are only worth the paper they're printed on, and should be opposed as much as possible. You say 'Your freedom of speech is limited by rules', so what? It is an anomaly, not something I should agree with just because it's decided by some legal authority.

Says who and what army? Unless you're calling the shots somewhere, your rights are only worth the paper they're printed on.

 

[Drencrom]

How does a person attack freedom of speech?

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Hate speech shouldn't be protected under the law. Poor comparison.

I wonder if the russian government thinks it's spouting hate speech? Hmmmmmmmm

 

[Mael]

I wonder if the russian government thinks it's spouting hate speech? Hmmmmmmmm

The russian government isn't exactly a paragon of democracy either.
When they stop murdering journalists we'll talk.

 

[Mercury Fred]

I wonder if the russian government thinks it's spouting hate speech? Hmmmmmmmm

You're not even worth engaging. Goofy false equivalencies waste everyone's time.

 

[KHarvey16]

You can't attack free speech with free speech.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Getting rid of religious fundamentalists IS defending freedom and liberty.

Likewise with No Platform policies. Of course people whinge about how such things are undemocratic, ignoring the fact that it's being done to stop people who are actual enemies of democracy and such.

It's like the "telling me to stop screaming about homos is bigotry!!!" shit.

 

[Angry Fork]

I actually think hate speech should be defended as free speech but not when it turns violent. The reason westboro baptist church should be allowed to say what they want is they're not inciting murder or violent jihad against people. They're pieces of shit but are not saying 'if you disagree with us we'll kill you'.

I think the UK is dead wrong on their hate speech laws though, it seems like every week I read a story about someone being arrested on a train just for calling someone a ni**er or some other slur. They're assholes but you shouldn't be arrested or fined for that. Their religious/muslim pandering is annoying too.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

You're not even worth engaging. Goofy false equivalencies waste everyone's time.

Why is it a false equivalence? Both actions seek to stop speech the government disagrees with, just so happens that one you agree with and the other you don't. It could easily be the other way around. What then? Go Russia? Fuck France?

 

[Mael]

Why is it a false equivalence? Both actions seek to stop speech the government disagrees with, just so happens that one you agree with and the other you don't. It could easily be the other way around.

Consider that in 1 case it's a fine(and light at that) and a deportation in the worst possible case (and you better believe he's being deported for something else) and the other case it's 3 years in an icy jail in Siberia...

 

[kirblar]

Can we do this with westboro baptist church?

Haven't other countries banned them?

 

[Alx]

What's with all the threads about France today ?

Freedom of speech and of religion is always a touchy subject. In that case I think the part that could justify a deportation is the claimed instigation of disorder. Those people are not kicked out because of their opinion, but because they're instigating disorder. That would be acceptable for a citizen (provided it's non-violent), but for a foreigner it can be an acceptable reason to decide they're not welcome any more.

 

[velociraptor]

Free speech is bullshit.

If you incite hatred, violence, or provoke others in comitting such acts, then I'm sorry, but there should be no legal defense for your actions.

Radical clerics should all be deported.

 

[Mael]

What's with all the threads about France today ?

Freedom of speech and of religion is always a touchy subject. In that case I think the part that could justify a deportation is the claimed instigation of disorder. Those people are not kicked out because of their opinion, but because they're instigating disorder. That would be acceptable for a citizen (provided it's non-violent), but for a foreigner it can be an acceptable reason to decide they're not welcome any more.

Nah we should let foreign powers brew up a coup because freedom of speech after all!

 

[Business]

Well done France

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Consider that in 1 case it's a fine(and light at that) and a deportation in the worst possible case (and you better believe he's being deported for something else) and the other case it's 3 years in an icy jail in Siberia...

actually

People found guilty of creating “false perceptions of the social equality of traditional and nontraditional sexual relations” face fines of as much as 500,000 rubles ($16,600), according to draft passed today by a vote of 388-1, with 1 abstaining.

any more excuses?

I'm pretty sure that deporting non-citizens who incite violence, hate and misogyny isn't comparable to locking up people with a different sexuality in jail.

You don't have to be a different sexuality, merely saying gay people should be equal to straight is enough to get fined

 

[Sapphire Dreams]

Speaking as a Muslim myself, I see why France is doing this, some Imams go the extreme to point out their views on and sometimes even put blood in their hands for doing it people who do this don't really understand the religion of Islam and should be ashamed of themselves for giving Islam such a bad reputation.

 

[Drencrom]

Why is it a false equivalence? Both actions seek to stop speech the government disagrees with, just so happens that one you agree with and the other you don't. It could easily be the other way around. What then? Go Russia? Fuck France?

I'm pretty sure that deporting non-citizens who incite violence, hate and misogyny isn't comparable to locking up people with a different sexuality in jail.

You can't attack free speech with free speech.

We get it, "people who reject intolerant people are intolerant", good one

Even if this would fall under free speech, it's still incitement.

 

[KHarvey16]

We get it, "people who reject intolerant people are intolerant", good one

How about "people who need to use strawmen to advance their argument have a shitty argument." We're not discussing intolerance. You can tell that by the way I didn't use that word.

Even if this would fall under free speech, it's still incitement.

Incitement when? This would be protected speech in the US given our definition of unprotected speech for reasons of incitement. It needs to incite a specific group against another specific group and be meant to do so before police could reasonably be expected to intervene. A sign saying kill people who have such and such opinion does not meet these requirements. I like that definition.

 

[The_Squirrel_Menace]

Where's the problem?

You are not french, you spit on his soil, you get the fuck out.



Also :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France

 

[Drencrom]

You don't have to be a different sexuality, merely saying gay people should be equal to straight is enough to get fined

That's horrible. But I don't see how that has anything to do with this. It's apparent Russia have shitty moral grounds and they are themselves inciting hate. That is not the case here.

 

[PJV3]

I actually think hate speech should be defended as free speech but not when it turns violent. The reason westboro baptist church should be allowed to say what they want is they're not inciting murder or violent jihad against people. They're pieces of shit but are not saying 'if you disagree with us we'll kill you'.

I think the UK is dead wrong on their hate speech laws though, it seems like every week I read a story about someone being arrested on a train just for calling someone a ni**er or some other slur. They're assholes but you shouldn't be arrested or fined for that. Their religious/muslim pandering is annoying too.

They should be thrown off the train at the very least. You pay for a ticket and should be left alone. It's not the words that bother me(so much), it's the harassment and antisocial behaviour.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

That's horrible. But I don't see how that has anything to do with this. It's apparent Russia have shitty moral grounds and they are themselves inciting hate. That is not the case here.

The morality of the action is not in question. What is moral here is decided by those in power. When they have the power to limit your speech as they see fit you are subject to their morality. Merely being a minority is enough to be singled out and oppressed, sounds awful huh?

 

[CHEEZMO™]

They should be thrown off the train at the very least. You pay for a ticket and should be left alone. It's not the words that bother me(so much), it's the harassment and antisocial behaviour.

Aren't many of the arrests for that sort of stuff made on harassment/public order grounds?

 

[Mael]

actually



any more excuses?

The fines about the hatespeech is actually close to 1€,
try again.
Also if you're not a citizen, you're not protected under free speech laws either.
non citizen don't get all the perks of the citizen just by living in the country.
Neither should they given all the rights, or they would be citizen per se.

 

[VariantX04]

I support this.

Speaking as a Muslim myself, I see why France is doing this, some Imams go the extreme to point out their views on and sometimes even put blood in their hands for doing it people who do this don't really understand the religion of Islam and should be ashamed of themselves for giving Islam such a bad reputation.

If that's the case then the majority of Saudi clerics don't understand Islam. These clerics grow up in communities that communicate these "us against them" ideals on a daily basis. That's the root of the problem and it has to be stopped for any real progress to happen.

Fun fact: a good fraction of the religious police in Saudi and imams in mosques are ex-convicts whose only requirements were to memorize the Quran for a reduced sentence. And these guys preach to hundreds every Friday for prayer with these crazy backwards ideas. Just last week, a friend of mine who attended Friday prayer told me the imam went on a tirade about how in the old days, villages would be burned down if they housed gay people and that he wishes it were the same to this day. Some of these people are not qualified to give you life advice yet they're seen as gods here. Pretty fucking despicable.

 

[Hitchslap]

Good job, France.

Throw out the extremists (but always explain why) and constantly educate the others. Islamophobia (or freedom of speech) has nothing to do with it. Someone who is calling for hate/violence has to be stopped...if it is a citizen - by police/ordre judiciaire; in other cases the easiest way is deportation.

 

[PJV3]

Aren't many of the arrests for that sort of stuff made on harassment/public order grounds?

I think so, the hate speech stuff has muddied the waters.

 

[Raist]

I imagine you have a much different opinion on this limit on free speech, despite it being almost the exact same lever, pulled for a slightly different purpose. Ban all the people who don't agree with how I see things!

And here's our shit analogy of the week.

 

[WARCOCK]

You just have to attack the EU in every threads, eh?


Honestly if the people making those intolerant preaching aren't French...What the hell are they doing in France in the first place?

He works for The City iirc. Ad hominem ftw.

 

[patapuf]

The morality of the action is not in question. What is moral here is decided by those in power. When they have the power to limit your speech as they see fit you are subject to their morality. Merely being a minority is enough to be singled out and oppressed, sounds awful huh?

the majority ruling is the foundation of democracy. Nobody is being opressed here exept extremists that call for the destruction of the state (which is legitimized by the french people).

 

[Jeels]

If that's the case then the majority of Saudi clerics don't understand Islam.

They don't.

 

[Shito]

Guys: "freedom of speech" doesn't really exist in France.
Or rather, it doesn't exist like what you're used to know in the States.
Here, hate-speech is forbidden by law, and can net you amends / jail-time.
Basically, in France, you're free to speak your mind as long as you're not being hateful to someone else / a certain group of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#France

 

[syllogism]

The fines about the hatespeech is actually close to 1€,
try again.
Also if you're not a citizen, you're not protected under free speech laws either.
non citizen don't get all the perks of the citizen just by living in the country.
Neither should they given all the rights, or they would be citizen per se.

You are actually, not that "free speech" laws usually matter when considering whether deportation is lawful or not.

 

[Mr.Awesome]

Is it cool to be openly racist in Europe? Judging by the internet, and what better thing is there to judge a place, it seems like it. Not that it necessarily present here, but the shit I see spewed about Muslims in Europe, particularly France, is stuff you would not be acceptable talking about other cultural groups. It is just bizarre to me.

And yeah, racist, not the right term, etc.

 

[Kurtofan]

Is it cool to be openly racist in Europe? Judging by the internet, and what better thing is there to judge a place, it seems like it. Not that it necessarily present here, but the shit I see spewed about Muslims in Europe, particularly France, is stuff you would not be acceptable talking about other cultural groups. It is just bizarre to me.

And yeah, racist, not the right term, etc.

It's cool in some circles, it's not in others.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

Fantastic 4 are muslim?

 

[Drencrom]

Incitement when? This would be protected speech in the US given our definition of unprotected speech for reasons of incitement. It needs to incite a specific group against another specific group and be meant to do so before police could reasonably be expected to intervene. A sign saying kill people who have such and such opinion does not meet these requirements. I like that definition.

Most of these radical Muslims want to enforce the Sharia Law which specifically targets women (downsizing their rights among things), that may not fall under incitement but it falls under hate speech in France.

Also, is the US definition of incitement the same as the French? If not, I can't see how it's relevant.

Edit: I didn't intend to put words into your mouth

The morality of the action is not in question. What is moral here is decided by those in power. When they have the power to limit your speech as they see fit you are subject to their morality. Merely being a minority is enough to be singled out and oppressed, sounds awful huh?

France has established what is hate speech and what is not. Some values and 'rules' radical Muslims advocate counts as hate speech. It's not about oppressing minorities because they do not fit the current government's views or whatever.

 

[scar tissue]

If you are in a foreign country and stirr up shit there is no reason to be surprised when you are kicked out.

Hateful speech is banned in most western countries, an that's a good thing.

This. Behave like a civilized human being if you're a guest in a country.
If I visit Saudi Arabia*, I don't go around proclaiming that all muslims are idiots, and I'd like Saudi Arabians who are guests in my country to have the basic decency and not call for my slaughter or oppression.

Note: SA is just an example. The same goes for any country.

 

[poppabk]

The morality of the action is not in question. What is moral here is decided by those in power. When they have the power to limit your speech as they see fit you are subject to their morality. Merely being a minority is enough to be singled out and oppressed, sounds awful huh?

When those in power have the ability to limit your liberty you are subject to their morality also. The US has an incarceration per capita 7 times higher than France. Minorities make up one third of the population but two thirds of the prison population. Roughly 1 in 10 African Americans is under some kind of corrections control.

 

[Metrotab]

Is it cool to be openly racist in Europe? Judging by the internet, and what better thing is there to judge a place, it seems like it. Not that it necessarily present here, but the shit I see spewed about Muslims in Europe, particularly France, is stuff you would not be acceptable talking about other cultural groups. It is just bizarre to me.

And yeah, racist, not the right term, etc.

This has nothing to do with it though. Radical and dangerous mutations of Islam are not only damaging to France, but to muslims as well.

 

[Sapphire Dreams]

I support this.


If that's the case then the majority of Saudi clerics don't understand Islam. These clerics grow up in communities that communicate these "us against them" ideals on a daily basis. That's the root of the problem and it has to be stopped for any real progress to happen.

Fun fact: a good fraction of the religious police in Saudi and imams in mosques are ex-convicts whose only requirements were to memorize the Quran for a reduced sentence. And these guys preach to hundreds every Friday for prayer with these crazy backwards ideas. Just last week, a friend of mine who attended Friday prayer told me the imam went on a tirade about how in the old days, villages would be burned down if they housed gay people and that he wishes it were the same to this day. Some of these people are not qualified to give you life advice yet they're seen as gods here. Pretty fucking despicable.

Exactly my point my brother, Allah help Muslims everywhere

 

[ElectricBlue187]

When those in power have the ability to limit your liberty you are subject to their morality also. The US has an incarceration per capita 7 times higher than France. Minorities make up one third of the population but two thirds of the prison population. Roughly 1 in 10 African Americans is under some kind of corrections control.

You'll find no argument from me on that. Agree 100%

 

[scar tissue]

I know it's forum talk. But we do have history of atheist movements that were anti clerical.

So? Saying religion should be abolished is not hate speech and should not be banned. Show me some atheist death threats or hate speech please.
No, r/atheism does not count, although I'd be surprised if you'd find actual death threats/hate speech there.
False equivalencies all up in this bitch.


On a sidenote, I'm pleasantly surprised that there are muslims who think this is a good idea.
In the end, it's in your best interests to get rid of the nutjobs who give all of you a bad name.
Same goes for gun owners and other groups with crazy/dangerous fringes btw.

 

[Tallshortman]

The US, probably the most liberal country in terms of free speech, even has laws banning speech inciting violence. There is nothing wrong with silencing (through ethical methods) people for preaching murder of innocents.

 

[hym]

Fantastic 4 are muslim?

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f21/fantastic-four-four-rightly-guided-caliphs-al-22957/

The Fantastic Four - The Four Rightly Guided Caliphs
Al Khulafa ur Rashidun

"Hold firmly to my example (sunnah) and that of the Rightly Guided Caliphs" (Ibn Majah, Abu Dawood)


Abu Bakr As Siddiq (632-634 A.D.)

Umar Ibn Al Khattab (634-644 A.D.)

Uthmaan Ibn Afaan (644-656 A.D.)

Ali ibn Abi Talib (656-661 A.D.)


Those Caliphs who truly followed in the Prophet's foot steps are called 'The Rightly-Guided Caliphs'.

Reminds me of the Holy Trinity, Healer, Tank, DPS.

 

[KHarvey16]

Most of these radical Muslims want to enforce the Sharia Law which specifically targets women (downsizing their rights among things), that may not fall under incitement but it falls under hate speech in France.

Also, is the US definition of incitement the same as the French? If not, I can't see how it's relevant.

Edit: I didn't intend to put words into your mouth

The current law is irrelevant to a discussion about what should be. Europe is full of laws limiting free speech in ways and for reasons that aren't justified sufficiently in my mind. Europeans in general are much more willing to cede incremental portions of that right in return for what they believe makes them safer or more peaceful. In the US the required justification to infringe upon free speech is held to a much, much higher standard and I see great value in that.