Support NeoGAF

[FriedConsole]

Who says it's about changing minds? It's not.
It's about protecting your citizens, especially the ones most vulnerable to group hate mentality (religious, ethinc minorities..) from harm, it's about learning from your own history and its tragedies and doing what you can to prevent it from happening again without infringing on freedom of speech.

What is harm? Physical harm? If some body is advocating physical harm, there are better laws already to prosecute on. Mental harm? You know it seems like we wouldn't have known this asshat said these things if he wasn't prosecuted. You are only giving them more attention and "harming" those people who would be offended by these things. Also it isn't the government's job to worry who is "harmed" by being offended by people's shitty jokes.

 

[Baki]

You can't use a commando mask while in public, because it is a security issue. People can not identify the person. Same applies to religious clothing, this has been settled in the courts.

There is also the issue of protecting women, because the outfit represents complete and utter subjugation and exclusion from normal society. The same reason why many European countries do not allow religious groups to brainwash their children and mandate that curriculum has to be followed.



Are you being serious? This piece of clothing comes from an area where acid is used to disfigure young girls if they dare to educate themselves. There is no choice, only religious indoctrination and no prospects of opportunity. Do you believe a woman who wears this..



...is going to have a sort of normal life in western society? Besides, France has a history of savage conflicts between various religious groups.

This shows your lack of knowledge on the Burka (which is fine, you can't be an expert on everything) , it's origins have nothing to do with acid attacks. The burka will mean different things to different people (even among Muslims). In some places in the world, it might be negative. In a free democracy such as France, it could represent a key part of their identity or modesty. Ultimately, a free society should allow it's citizens to wear what they want and although you personally may not be able to reconcile why someone wants to wear a Burka. To someone else, they might really want to wear it. It's important to maintain that choice.

Maybe I'm missing something. But wouldn't mocking depictions of Mohammad seem to fall under this to about the same extent Dieudonne does?

Id imagine so. But I also imagine there are ways to get around that.

I don't think the interpretation of that cartoon is that Mohammed is a terrorist or that all Muslims are terrorists. The creator said:

At face value and to your average Joe. That's not what it looks like. The creator say any number of things - the face value of his work is what's most important (because that's what people see)

Well when a country has roaming Sharia police and entire cities that are Muslim only and natives dare not tread for fear of their life, you can't seriously expect the cowered politicians to ban the burka.

Haha. #foxnewsfacts

[/B]
oh yeah sure, you manage your nutters real fine. (sarcasm)

I'd say the UK is miles ahead of France with regards to civil liberties.

 

[CrazyDogg77]

Maybe I'm missing something. But wouldn't mocking depictions of Mohammad seem to fall under this to about the same extent Dieudonne does?

It would seem so. But the courts said seems to be the only rationalization given for why this is hate speech and that's not.

Wait people really think the burka came about because of acid attacks?

 

[Oemenia]

well said

Wow this debate again, seriously?

 

[Onyar]

Everybody knows that comedians are the real thread of our society.
But this guy doesn't deserve much attention as a comedian, this guy deserved be arrested for apology of the terrorism.

 

[gutter_trash]

What is harm? Physical harm? If some body is advocating physical harm, there are better laws already to prosecute on. Mental harm? You know it seems like we wouldn't have known this asshat said these things if he wasn't prosecuted. You are only giving them more attention and "harming" those people who would be offended by these things. Also it isn't the government's job to worry who is "harmed" by being offended by people's shitty jokes.

Sympathizing with a terrorist is a crime, especially one that killed 4 civilians and 1 cop

that is a crime

 

[MIMIC]

France has a very funny concept of "freedom of speech". Over here, you can laud 9/11 to your heart's content.

 

[plasmawave]

So how is mocking a religion consistently and persistently not also hate speech?

It's OK as long as it offends them and not us

 

[TimeEffect]

Nobody should ever be prosecuted for saying anything.

Interestingly, there are some clerics in Islam and leaders/figures who are outright banned from certain European countries for what they promote in their speech.

I dont know much about this comedian, but I wonder if it falls under the same umbrella. Anyone have insight, or support those banned figures on principle?

 

[Raist]

This shows your lack of knowledge on the Burka (which is fine, you can't be an expert on everything) , it's origins have nothing to do with acid attacks. The burka will mean different things to different people (even among Muslims). In some places in the world, it might be negative. In a free democracy such as France, it could represent a key part of their identity or modesty. Ultimately, a free society should allow it's citizens to wear what they want and although you personally may not be able to reconcile why someone wants to wear a Burka. To someone else, they might really want to wear it. It's important to maintain that choice.

You'll most likely be arrested running around in France wearing a hardcore SM outfit. Or naked.
There are limits to what is allowed in the public space, and this has nothing to do with racism and targeting a particular religious group.

 

[ICKE]

Seriously? Sharia police? We'd batter them if they tried to pull that off. They wouldn't last a minute.

So what do you propose we do as a society in order to battle disenfranchisement? How are you going to give proper education and other important life tools for girls who don't even have an identity while in public? Do you not understand the problem when people grow up in completely secluded communities.

There are valid complaints when we talk about social engineering but I believe people should be able to examine all possible avenues in life.

If a person decides to go with the Burqa, after she has a degree in law, medicine or engineering,, then we should probably do our best to facilitate that while also upholding our other laws. That being said, I think everyone who is making this argument understands the answer as to how many women in that position would willingly wear the Burqa.

 

[FriedConsole]

Sympathizing with a terrorist is a crime, especially one that killed 4 civilians and 1 cop

that is a crime

So was it a crime when Bill Maher said this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNMhNJDRnhU

Seems like he is sympathizing to me.

 

[Baki]

You'll most likely be arrested running around in France wearing a hardcore SM outfit. Or naked.
There are limits to what is allowed in the public space, and this has nothing to do with racism and targeting a particular religious group.

The UK has similar laws, but has managed to allow the Burka in public. We seem to be doing fine here. Except for the weather and the excessive tax. Lol

 

[The Incarnation]

I'm guessing there is a distinction between people and religion since religion is an idea/belief, and not a persons

On paper yes, but in the mind, not so much.

If you're born into a religion you're pretty much fucked from day one. Especially with Islam, most end up identifying with it more so than even skin colour and nationality. However there's is always a choice to see the whole world out there. But that's what it is a choice, and few choose to leave their comfort zone.Takes a tough person to isolate themselves from what they know.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

So was it a crime when Bill Maher said this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNMhNJDRnhU

Seems like he is sympathizing to me.

THIS.

How we've gotten to the point where we want to ban certain "offensive" speech is just fucking frightening.

 

[Raist]

We manage fine in the UK.

Considering Dieudonné is banned from entering the UK, that's quite funny.

 

[SmokyDave]

Not cool, France. Not cool.

The UK has similar laws, but has managed to allow the Burka in public. We seem to be doing fine here. Except for the weather and the excessive tax. Lol

We do not seem to be doing fine here.

 

[Josh7289]

France has a very funny concept of "freedom of speech". Over here, you can laud 9/11 to your heart's content.

Agreed, and I think people should be allowed to say what they want.

I don't need the government to tell me that they're idiots. I can do that myself.

 

[Baki]

Considering Dieudonné is banned from entering the UK, that's quite funny.

But if he wasn't banned. We'd let him wear a Burka.

UK 1 - 0 France

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

Free speech? Only if you agree with us.

 

[ICKE]

Nobody should ever be prosecuted for saying anything.

If I tell a bunch of nut jobs in some street corner that beating your family members would serve society well, and they decide to act on that sentiment and in the process end up killing someone, do you think I should be able to walk free? Now extend that dynamic to sexual minorities and you have hate speech.

 

[Josh7289]

If I tell a bunch of nut jobs in some street corner that beating your family members would serve society well, and they decide to act on that sentiment and in the process, do you think I should be able to walk free?

Yes. It was their decision to listen to you. They should be arrested for domestic violence, though.

 

[kingkitty]

In the United States, hate speech = freedom of speech. But of course, different countries, etc, etc.

 

[ComputerMKII]

If I tell a bunch of nut jobs in some street corner that beating your family members would serve society well, and they decide to act on that sentiment and in the process, do you think I should be able to walk free?

Yes. You're not responsible for other people's stupidity

 

[Baki]

Not cool, France. Not cool.


We do not seem to be doing fine here.

Hmm. Haven't figured out if you are a closet Ukip voter/racist yet. So I'm not sure if I should take your opinion at face value lol.

... But I'll play your game. Other than the cost of electronics, tax and the cost of public transport in London. The UK is pretty cool.

 

[ICKE]

Yes. It was their decision to listen to you. They should be arrested for domestic violence, though.

Yes. You're not responsible for other people's stupidity

We just have to disagree on that. I do also believe in abstract principles but in some instances a more utilitarian approach better serves our society. I don't have a problem with someone calling me an idiot and harshly criticizing my nationality but when you start promoting violence against some group that is already in a weak position, be it blacks, sexual minorities or Jews, then I believe you should be sentenced to some fines. And if you are trying to organize a mob that will probably cause violence in the immediate future, then your ass belongs in prison.

 

[The Incarnation]

So what do you propose we do as a society in order to battle disenfranchisement? How are you going to give proper education and other important life tools for girls who don't even have an identity while in public? Do you not understand the problem when people grow up in completely secluded communities.

There are valid complaints when we talk about social engineering but I believe people should be able to examine all possible avenues in life.

If a person decides to go with the Burqa, after she has a degree in law, medicine or engineering,, then we should probably do our best to facilitate that while also upholding our other laws. That being said, I think everyone who is making this argument understands the answer as to how many women in that position would willingly wear the Burqa. Go and ask.

I have no desire to take the role of Mohammed, and tell these people how to think and live. I'm no master of any man or woman.

Free choice is a available to everyone. Even in prison a man can choose how to behave, how to walk and talk.

You can either be yourself or act like your peers, whatever makes you feel comfortable. Most Muslims choose to stay with what they're familiar with.

Also you grossly underestimate Muslim women.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

In the United States, hate speech = freedom of speech. But of course, different countries, etc, etc.

Haha, I don't even wanna bring the US cause then I'll have to read 30 posts about our problems and how we have no room to have an opinion on the subject.

I have no desire to take the role of Mohammed, and tell these people how to think and live. I'm no master of any man or woman.

Free choice is a available to everyone. Even in prison a man can choose how to behave, how to walk and talk.

You can either be yourself or act like your peers, whatever makes you feel comfortable. Most Muslims choose to stay with what they're familiar with.

Also you grossly underestimate Muslim women.

 

[Pepboy]

Maybe I'm missing something. But wouldn't mocking depictions of Mohammad seem to fall under this to about the same extent Dieudonne does?

I feel the same way, and would be curious if anyone has a reason for why they differ besides "the authorities decide what is hate speech and what is not."

edit: Just saw this reply:

I'm guessing there is a distinction between people and religion since religion is an idea/belief, and not a persons

In theory that's a nice distinction but according to the legislation cited above:

"concrete expressions constituting hate speech, which may be insulting to particular individuals or groups, are not protected by Article 10 of the Convention."

I would imagine excessively mocking a religion would be considered insulting to particular groups? I would say speech attacking homosexuals would fall in the same category -- you don't need to name an individual for it to be hate speech.

 

[gutter_trash]

verbal abuse is not free speech

harassment is not free speech

verbal sexual harassment is not free speech

hate speech is not free speech

verbal threats are not free speech

 

[ICKE]

I have no desire to take the role of Mohammed, and tell these people how to think and live. I'm no master of any man or woman.

Free choice is a available to everyone. Even in prison a man can choose how to behave, how to walk and talk.

You can either be yourself or act like your peers, whatever makes you feel comfortable. Most Muslims choose to stay with what they're familiar with.

Also you grossly underestimate Muslim women.

You pretend like free choice is somehow absolute and social barriers do not exist, a libertarian notion that is completely disconnected from reality. Look at the employment statistics for Somali females in various European countries for example and make some rudimentary comparisons. I am not some white knight thinking that women are delicate flowers we must protect, I am just looking at the reality of disenfranchisement. The prospects are rather grim in many Muslim communities.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Unless there is a specific, direct threat "I'm going to go kill some Jews, who's with me" then hate speech laws seem ridiculous to me. This statement probably wouldn't fall under hate speech though anyway would it, threats of violence fall under something else?

 

[Oemenia]

[/B]
oh yeah sure, you manage your nutters real fine. (sarcasm)

Actually they do manage fine, especially when considering how badly Arabs in France or Turks in Germany do.

 

[Alavard]

hate speech is not free speech

I think many here would agree. The more important question, however, becomes what you classify as hate speech and what you do not.

 

[Ri'Orius]

You can't use a commando mask while in public, because it is a security issue. People can not identify the person. Same applies to religious clothing, this has been settled in the courts.

So I can't wear a ski mask when it's cold out? I can't wear a horse-head mask on the streets on Halloween, or on my way to a costume party?

What about sunglasses, a hoodie and a baseball cap? Is that too obscuring of my face?

Are you being serious? This piece of clothing comes from an area where acid is used to disfigure young girls if they dare to educate themselves. There is no choice, only religious indoctrination and no prospects of opportunity. Do you believe a woman who wears this..



...is going to have a sort of normal life in western society? Besides, France has a history of savage conflicts between various religious groups.

I don't think someone who chooses to get their earlobes stretched out or their eyebrow pierced will be able to have a "normal" life in western society (maybe more normal these days in certain cities, but certainly not a decade or more ago). Should those be banned, too?

Do you honestly believe there isn't a significant anti-Islam motivation behind the burka ban? That it's an entirely objective attempt to keep people identifiable?

Anyway, as for the original topic of this thread: it's unclear to me what, exactly, this guy said. I'm fine with laws against saying "let's kill some niggers!" or whatnot. Y'know, actively inciting violence (the more specific the better). But if all he said was the equivalent of "I am bin Laden"... that's not hate speech. That's not a threat.

 

[Gustav]

If I tell a bunch of nut jobs in some street corner that beating your family members would serve society well, and they decide to act on that sentiment and in the process end up killing someone, do you think I should be able to walk free? Now extend that dynamic to sexual minorities and you have hate speech.

Yes. Prosecute the people that killed someone.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

verbal abuse is not free speech

harassment is not free speech

verbal sexual harassment is not free speech

hate speech is not free speech

verbal threats are not free speech

This is too general to really mean anything other than a bullshit feel-good slogan.

Verbal abuse is defined as what? By whom? Should we shut youtube comments down now?

Harassment is defined as? Annoying someone once? After a single warning? Two? Three?

What is "hate speech"? Is drawing a cartoon of a religions sacred prophet hate speech? Who gets to decide that?

Verbal threats is relaying an intent to do bodily harm. Nothing else in that list implicitly does that.

 

[Hale-XF11]

If that's hate speech, then so is drawing a cartoon of a religious figure in order to provoke a response.

 

[Dr.Acula]

Here's the quote, translated:

“After this historic, no legendary, march... a magic moment equal to the Big Bang which created the Universe... or in a smaller (more local) way comparable to the crowning of the (ancient Gaullish king) Vercingétorix, I am going home. Let me say that this evening, as far as I am concerned, I feel I am Charlie Coulibaly.”

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Dieudonne has possibly inspired terrorism in the past (the shooters at the Jewish museum last year seemed to be fans of his at least) and has wished/"joked" that Jewish opponents of his would have been put in gas chambers, this guy is a freak.

 

[FriedConsole]

Do you honestly believe there isn't a significant anti-Islam motivation behind the burka ban? That it's an entirely objective attempt to keep people identifiable?

Nah it is like Jim Crow laws are just tests to make sure people can read and have some intelligence for voting. Also like the Voter ID laws are just to make sure we are cracking down on voter fraud.

Spoiler

SARCASM

 

[Gustav]

verbal abuse is not free speech

harassment is not free speech

verbal sexual harassment is not free speech

hate speech is not free speech

verbal threats are not free speech

That's not how it works. Either you have free speech or you don't. If you regulate it, it's not free.

 

[m_dorian]

This guy is either an agent provocateur or an idiot. My Vulkan logic cant process this differently.

 

[Typhares]

In France we are champions for creating laws anyway.
In our human right declaration we have a line that guarantee free speech and the right to your opinion and communicating ideas except that unlike in the US we have a clause that says 'except if it goes against the law'.
From there new laws keep being made that limit free speech such as this for apology of terrorism. Comedians and such are somewhat suppose to be exempt of some of these laws because if falls under satire however as we've seen it's a fine line to tread.

Either way and I've said this in another tread, forbidding does not mean eradicating and seeing the situation in France it's clearly ineffective.

Right now the latest debate is about the fact that there was a minute of silence for the victims but in a lot of school many children refused to participate even going as far as saying they deserved to die anyway. Truly a success story of integration.

 

[Alavard]

That's not how it works. Either you have free speech or you don't. If you regulate it, it's not free.

By that definition, no one has freedom of speech, in any country. Also, that would mean no one has any freedoms at all, as all freedoms are regulated to some extent.

 

[Mimosa97]

verbal abuse is not free speech

harassment is not free speech

verbal sexual harassment is not free speech

hate speech is not free speech

verbal threats are not free speech

He wasn't arrested for hate speech. He was arrested after saying " I feel like Charlie Coulibaly " under charge of glorifying terrorism (i don't know how to say it in english but you get my point). And there's ZERO chance that this charge can hold in court. He will be declared not guilty.

You're talking non-sense, i already answered you once in a long post but i guess you don't care and i did indeed lose my time writing that post.

 

[Sir Alemeth]

Update: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/14/dieudonne-trial-charlie-hebdo_n_6472480.html

French Comedian Dieudonne To Stand Trial Over Facebook Post On Paris Attacks

 

[BaronLundi]

There is sarcastic comment here, can't decipher it fully. Care to elaborate?

I just find it quite humourous that you would talk about a protected minority when 5 Jews were killed not a week ago because they were Jews, and 4 two years ago in a school (3 of which were children, one dragged by the hairs before getting executed), when synagogues are closed, when Jewish schools and Jewish shops have to be protected by the military. Today, in France.

Same regarding parodies and drawing seeing the number of blatantly antisemitic ones that do exist (coming from France, or the Middle-East or pretty much anywhere) without many of the authors being sued, let alone condemned or you know... murdered.

I know you're talking about legal proceedings there but still. Being sued (a trial which in France any association can trigger) is not being condemned. Siné, Dieudonné and Charlie Hebdo were all sued a lot. None of them were condemned much.

Dieudonné is a hate preacher, an attention seeker and a money maker. He doesn't mock religion or ideas, he mocks Jews (and now Jews only) especially holocaust victims.He could rot in a cell for all I care, but I don't think his arrest was a good idea (because that's exactly what he wanted, because it reinforces his disgusting conspiracy theories, and because it fuels hate) let alone banning his show which was legally unsound on top of being absolutely counter-productive.

 

[Lion Heart]

An ironing board just fell on my head.

 

[CrazyDogg77]

This is too general to really mean anything other than a bullshit feel-good slogan.

Verbal abuse is defined as what? By whom? Should we shut youtube comments down now?

Harassment is defined as? Annoying someone once? After a single warning? Two? Three?

What is "hate speech"? Is drawing a cartoon of a religions sacred prophet hate speech? Who gets to decide that?

Verbal threats is relaying an intent to do bodily harm. Nothing else in that list implicitly does that.

It's obvious hate speech is what supports "those people" and anything denigrating "those people" is just satire