Does France have a "Freedom of Speech" amendment similiar to the U.S.A?

[straffo]

VAQ : I do agree with you you expressed my though better than I would ever have done (being not a native english it's hard to be undertstood sometime ...)

[Saintaw]

One of France neighbouring countries is having a fit about this right now too.... Free speach led them to have a "Debate" on National television on Sept 10th. On one side you could see representatives of the Government, in the middle some mild muslims, and on the right Extremists-Muslims. It was to say the least... interesting

It got especially interesting when one of the Extremists priests announced that he had done some 1500 weddings (multiple wives, I forgot the word now)... and a second later, he was charged for it and last I know he was sentenced to a pretty large fine. So long for free speach on National-TV (Not to mention that the extremist ended up looking like silly puppets too)

Ah, Straffo... "Houellebecq" ....

[straffo]

nul n'est sensé ignorer la loi

translation : none shall ignore the law

[moot]

Saw:
Vas-y, Houellebecq, quoi?

[Saintaw]

Que dire.. a part que je ne suis pas un fan de ses theories revisionnistes (Enfin, je me suis arrete a un roman, j'avoues.)

[Shuckins]

Vaq,

My compliments on a very eloquent post.

As you pointed out, the limits of free speech have always been narrowly defined.  The danger with censorship has been and always will be determining what the "limits" of free speech should be.

While a democratic government has the right, and obligation, to restrict activities by individual citizens that pose a danger to the community at large, the U.S. Constitution established boundaries on its' powers to do so.

In the case in question, involving the French novelist Michel Houellebecq, it is quite likely that he could be found guilty of violating some nebulous law against "hate speech."  The comments made by him during a television inverview, while critical of a major religion, and somewhat obnoxious, fall far short of actually inciting anyone to commit violence and bloodshed.

He said "...the dumbest religion, after all, is Islam.  When you read the Koran, you are shattered.  The Bible, at least, is beautifully written for the Jews have a hack of a literary talent."

Let us assume, for a moment, that this statement IS what Houellebecq's accusers say it is:  hate speech.  Does such an accusation automatically justify its repression?  Can the expulsion of his supporters from the courtroom for wearing t-shirts emblazoned with the phrase "Freedom of Expression" also be justified because they defend a man accused of a hate crime?

Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune stated, as you pointed out, that once we begin to exempt certain words and phrases from the First Amendment protections the tendency would arise for more words and phrases to be added to the list.  You took the stance that Page's statement was not true, that because moral values change, the list would expand and contract.

I most strong disagree.  It is not the idea of the list expanding and contracting that I take exception with but the very existence of the list itself.  It is the nature of a government to constantly expand its' powers.  Public opinion may swing back and forth between liberal and conservative definitions of morality, but history shows that the most repressive governments can begin, with the best of intentions, as a relatively benevolent movement to control its citizens' baser actions.  Powerful constituencies would dominate the government, repressing the speech of those who hold opposing viewpoints.

There is nothing inherently evil about the desire to control dangerous or hate-filled speech.  The danger arises when powerful groups decide that they have the only moral compass, and that all dissenting opinions need to be suppressed with the aid of government agencies.  

Would you be content to live under such an Orwellian government, which defines truth as whatever it wants it to be?

Using the government to control hate-speech might seem to be a worthwhile goal, but who gets to decide what types of speech are hateful?  You Vaq?  Me?  Midnight Target?  Ripsnort?

Why should hate not be permitted to express itself?  If it is not allowed to do so in the public forum, it will only find a more violent means of making itself heard.  Oppose the opinions that the haters voice in public.  Expose the futility of their hatred with reasoned arguments.  Plead your case, cajole, attempt to persuade, or ridicule their hypocrisy if necessary.  Let them blow off steam, but do not deny them the right to speak.

Statements such as "I hate all Jews/cupcakes/Wops/Chinese/Catholics/etc." may make my gorge rise, but should the government have the power to arrest the person for saying it?  Houellebecq's statement was less offensive than the one above.  Do we not run the risk, whether in France or the U.S., of imprisoning people for merely criticizing other groups?

As much as I have disagreed with the actions of the ACLU over the years, I whole-heartedly agree with their stance on freedom of speech.


Regards, Shuckins

[VAQ]

Originally posted by Shuckins While a democratic government has the right, and obligation, to restrict activities by individual citizens that pose a danger to the community at large, the U.S. Constitution established boundaries on its' powers to do so.

Yes sir.  The U.S. Constitution, signed on September 17, 1787 (215 years ago today) may also be amended, or changed, by act of law.  The U.S. Constitution has been amended 27 times, most recently in 1992 .  It seems that the boundaries established by the Constitution are in a state of constant flux.  

Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune stated, as you pointed out, that once we begin to exempt certain words and phrases from the First Amendment protections the tendency would arise for more words and phrases to be added to the list.  You took the stance that Page's statement was not true, that because moral values change, the list would expand and contract.
I most strong(sic) disagree.  It is not the idea of the list expanding and contracting that I take exception with but the very existence of the list itself.

I am relieved that you do not take exception to my idea of the expansion and contraction of Mr. Page's "list."

It is the nature of a government to constantly expand its' powers.

Yes sir.  Might one refer to this as an expansion of established boundaries (see paragraph one, above).

Would you be content to live under such an Orwellian government, which defines truth as whatever it wants it to be?

I am proud to be an American.  I have served my country in the Armed Forces.  I have visited a significant portion of the globe in service to my country, and I feel that I am a very fortunate individual indeed to live in the United States of America.  To answer your question, yes, my life under this government, "which defines truth as whatever it wants it to be," has been quite content.  

Using the government to control hate-speech might seem to be a worthwhile goal, but who gets to decide what types of speech are hateful?  You Vaq?  Me?  Midnight Target?  Ripsnort?

Yes sir.  l decide what types of speech are hateful, which types of speech are good and which are bad.  Every person makes these decisions every day, in every conversation.  We are  trained in self-censorship from the time we first learn to speak as a child.  

Censorship and self-censorship is and has always been a part of who and what we are, as citizens and as social beings.

[straffo]

as I've heard the accusasion asked for an "aquitement"

That's not a not guilty judgement but more a "this trial should never has been"

In fact in our legal system their is one judge called "juge d'instruction" who make the accusation dossier then at the trial it's up to to the "procureur" (le parquet) to ask for the proper "condamnation".

in this case the "procureur" asked to stop the trial it's now to the judge to follow or not what the procureur asked



sorry for the bad english used in this post explaining our legal system simply is far beyond my english abilities

[Innominate]

Freedom of speech is there to protect people from saying things that others wont like.

It's not freedom to say things we dont mind hearing.  Nazis and racists don't have to hide behind it, people like me throw it in front of them.  It's there for the express purpose of protecting EVERYONE from the tyrrany of the majority.

No matter how big of an amazinhunk you are, or how wrong you are, or how much what you're saying may offend someone, it's still your right to do it.  Nobody has to listen, nobody has to publish it, but nobody has the right to say you can't say it.

It's better to be offended once in a while, than to put up with the possiblity of your being squelched by the government.

[H. Godwineson]

Vaq,

When Clarence Page referred to a list of forbidden terms he was using an abstraction.  He was implying that such a list would have a tendency to grow.  I agreed with him, because, theoretically, depending of course on WHO decided which terms belonged on the list, it WOULD grow larger.

The boundaries of the Constitution may be in a constant state of flux, and dangerous speech that incites violence or poses a threat to public safety should be regulated.  However, the Founding Fathers clearly intended that freedom of speech, specifically political speech and opinion voiced in public, not be restricted.  As I stated earlier, the danger in trying to define "hate speech" is that, in the long run, we would end up punishing people for holding opinions unacceptable to the ruling parties in government.

The Founding Fathers felt that a government that constantly expanded it's powers would eventually go through a metamorphosis, changing slowly, gradually, bit-by-bit, from benevolent democracy to repressive totalitarianism.  That is the reason that the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, as a safeguard against that event.  Freedom of speech, and freedom of opinion, were meant to be absolute.  I am afraid that if the U.S. government ever does go through that change, most of our citizens will not be able to recognize it for what it is, until it is too late.  I love my government too, Vaz, but I do not entirely trust it.  No government is worthy of blind trust by it's citizens.
The authors of the Constitution understood the dangers of such unquestioning trust in a government.  There are many Americans today who do not.

When I asked if you would be content to live under such an Orwellian system of government I was, again, speaking theoretically.  In no way did I mean to imply that our current system of government was Orwellian or repressive.  So far, at least, I cannot be arrested for criticizing the actions or beliefs of other ethnic, religious, or political groups.  But it COULD happen, someday...if we are not vigilant.  I am proud to be an American, too, Vaq.  My loyalty, however, is to the principles of freedom that, according to John Locke, are part of my natural rights, and which the government was created to defend.  

If our government ever becomes abusive of those rights, what will you do?  What actions are you willing to take?  What if protests are ineffective?  What will you do then?

Our Founding Fathers took up arms under similar circumstances.  Would modern Americans be willing to do the same?  Somehow I doubt it.  Government largesse tends to buy a lot of loyalty.  

I hope it never comes to that.


Regards, Shuckins

[-tronski-]

In australia you legally don't have the freedom of speech.
Infact because we are a proudly democratic country, the idea that we would not have the freedom to express ourselves is hardly even considered.

However...

One of the values this country has is the idea of a fair go.
One of the problems of having these inalienable rights ,is that often your right to speak can often trample over other peoples right not to be victimised or abused.
As straffo pointed out, promoting Nazism in France is completely unacceptable...as is the case in this country.

e.g

Australian Federal court bans hate website

Court orders man to pull offensive content from Internet

The Federal Court has handed down a landmark ruling, saying an Adelaide man must stop publishing racially offensive material on the Internet.

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry brought the case against Frederick Toben before the court in Sydney.

It relates to material published on the website of the Adelaide Institute, which Mr Toben heads.

The court deemed as insulting, claims that the Holocaust in World War II never occurred and that only Jewish people of limited intelligence were offended by such arguments.

The president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Jeremy Jones, says today's ruling is proof the Racial Discrimination Act does apply to the Internet.

"The fact that the Internet was treated as an area of publication covered by the law shows very clearly that we now have [a] law that [if] you are defamed on the Internet as a member of a group, then you have the same rights as a person defamed as an individual," Mr Jones said.

Mr Toben says he plans to appeal against the Federal Court's order.

He says Australians must be allowed freedom of expression on the Internet.

"The fact that Australia has finally got its judgement to censor the Internet, well it's a shameful day, a shameful day," he said.


Tronsky