Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on September 16, 2002, 03:17:54 PM
-
After reading this story, I guess not! :eek:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2260922.stm
Prize-winning French novelist Michel
Houellebecq is to stand trial on Tuesday on
charges of making a racial insult and inciting
religious hatred.
The controversial writer is being sued by four
Islamic organisations in Paris after making
"insulting" remarks about the religion in an
interview about his latest book.
-
YEh weird that isnt it, he gets busted whilst islamic extreamists can set up a recruitment stall in the local high street to get people to go and fight for the Taliban during the Afgan conflict earlyer this year.
AND NO ONE CAN SAY A THING and the police do nothing
makes me bloody sick.
-
1st question : No
You can't hide yourself behind an amendement here
If you promote nazism (for exemple) you gonna pay fast :)
2nd Question
Houellebecq has used it as a way to have his name in the Newspapper ... advertisement you now ...
3 and last yes he is an bellybutton hole as he has give fuel to the extremist muslim in France ....
and lastly our legal system is completly different so the outcome is not predictable here
so this sentence
He faces a year in jail or a 52,000 € (£33,000) fine if he loses the case.
is likely to be false and even if condamned I would be very surprise if he had to pay more than 1 (ONE) €
-
Originally posted by Obear1971
YEh weird that isnt it, he gets busted whilst islamic extreamists can set up a recruitment stall in the local high street to get people to go and fight for the Taliban during the Afgan conflict earlyer this year.
AND NO ONE CAN SAY A THING and the police do nothing
makes me bloody sick.
you are confusing with England ...
-
There are tons of Nazis hiding on this BBS.
:D
-
I have been reading these boards at least twice a day for almost two years. I have said little. I do hope I am not shooting myself in the foot-
Censorship (prior restraint) has never been constitutional- although post factum punishment for the distribution of morally and ethically objectionable material always has been.
There have always been limits to freedom of speech. Censorship and self-censorship have always been a part of the process of free speech. Censorship is never absolute; the limits of censorship expand and contract in response to current definitions of morality. The government places restrictions on freedoms necessary to protect the rights of others, and to protect the national security, public order, and public health.
The greatest poets and philosophers throughout history have advocated limitations to freedom of speech. In ancient Athens, the very seat of democracy, verbal and written opinions were subject to censorship. The Athenian democracy sentenced the philosopher Socrates to death for subversive speech. Plato, a student of Socrates who witnessed the philosopher’s death, supported limitations to the freedom of speech. “The poet shall compose nothing contrary to the ideas of the lawful, or just, or beautiful, or good, which are allowed in the state,” Plato wrote in Book II of The Republic. “Neither shall he be permitted to show his compositions to any private individual, until he shall have shown them to the appointed censors and guardians of the law, and they are satisfied with them.” It is the loss of political freedom that leads to a loss of artistic and literary freedom.
In 1644, two thousand years after the death of Plato, the English poet John Milton wrote the Areopagitica, an ardent plea for freedom of speech. In the Areopagitica, delivered to the English Parliament in 1644, Milton wrote: “Give me the liberty to know, to utter and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.” Freedom of speech was a part of John Milton’s philosophy. Paradoxically, Milton’s philosophy of freedom of speech, when made specific, embraced only those people who shared the same values and ideas. John Milton, considered the greatest English poet since Shakespeare, became Oliver Cromwell’s official censor in 1649. As the official censor of the Lord Protector of England, John Milton was able to impose a narrowly defined, personal interpretation of morality on the English people.
The influence of Milton’s Areopagitica through the centuries, notably in early American and French political systems, has been considerable. Although censorship has never been constitutional, censorship has long coexisted with human rights in the United States and France. The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in America, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in France guarantees the quality of life, and reflects Milton’s doctrine of no prior restraint. The two declarations became the models for most declarations of political and civil rights adopted by European states in the 19th century.
One might argue that human rights, such as the right of free speech, are basic freedoms, and fall beyond the scope of regulation by the state, regardless of the enactment of law. History suggests otherwise. In World War I the United States passed the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 into law, designed to censor pro-German publications. In 1959, the government of Charles de Gaulle in France adopted a new article to the French Constitution that made censorship legal.
Advocates of complete freedom of speech often suggest that restrictions to freedom of speech have a tendency to spread beyond the limits that defined the original restrictions. Clarence Page, columnist for the Chicago Tribune, states in the essay Censoring Obscene Music Is Not Justified: “Once we begin to exempt from First Amendment protections words and ideas that offend some of us, the list of exceptions that affects all of us only grows longer. It does not shrink.” I suggest that this statement is not true. Due to the inevitability of change, the moral values of society change from one generation to the next. In 1989, the United States Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a Texas law against flag desecration, removing one item from Mr. Page’s list of exceptions. The Supreme Court ruled that flag desecration is a form of non-verbal, symbolic speech. The list of exceptions expands and contracts in response to current definitions of morality.
Society delegates the power of government to “elected” officials. The government places restrictions on freedom necessary to protect the rights of others, and to protect the national security, public order, and public health. The “elected” officials in a fully democratic society directly reflect the known and ascertained values of the proletariat, values that are often subaltern to personal judgment. In a republic, elected officials rely on personal judgment to determine the needs and interests of the republic. One might say that most governments are a synthesis of the democratic and republican forms. In the United States, the proletariat selects congressional representatives by democratic method. Congressional representatives compose, submit, and pass legislature into law by republican method. Author Rod Davis asserts this premise in his essay Speech Should Be Limited,
“If free speech means anything, it can only refer to the expression of a hazy range of interpretations within the ideological parameters of an enforcing power. The “free speech” of the dominant class will never be the free speech of the oppressed and exploited, and saying so in the face of historical experience is dissembling… Constitutional “free speech” in the daily, concrete world, consists of what the government decides it to be.”
Freedom of speech is a universal right, a fundamental right indivisible from other human rights necessary for the enjoyment and protection of other rights. Universal, fundamental, and indivisible, freedom of speech is not, however, an absolute right. The freedom of speech is now and has always been subject to restrictions in certain narrowly defined circumstances (just try shouting FIRE!!! in a crowded movie theater). Freedom of opinion is absolute (best embodied by Voltaire’s famous statement “I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.”); freedom of speech carries special duties and responsibilities. Advocates of complete freedom of speech abrogate responsibility for the content and impact of speech as well, a claim of privilege without social responsibility. A utopian society, composed of individuals who enjoy complete freedom of speech without attendant social responsibility, is not a society al all. It is anarchy.
Of course this is simply my opinion. I had more but my fingers are getting tired.
-
<<<3 and last yes he is an bellybutton hole as he has give fuel to the extremist muslim in France ....>>>
Does this statement bother anyone but me?
-
perhaps i can add to what VAQ has stated. While i dont claim to speak for this fine gentleman, i do feel that perhaps we have the same view on this topic.
i will refer the membes of this bbs to the following:
"One kind of speech which many people think is appropriate for the government to control is hate literature (also known as "hate propaganda"). Canada has a law (section 319 of the Criminal Code) which forbids hate propaganda.
One of the first serious legal tests od this legislation in court was in the case of R. vs. Keegstra, which went to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1990.
Keegstra had been a teacher who had taught his classes that the Holocaust did not occur, and that there was a world-wide Jewish conspiracy. The issue before the court was whether a law limiting the ability to put forward hate propaganda infringes on the right to freedom of expression (section 2 (b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms), and if so, whether suck a limitation can nevertheless be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" (as required by section 1 of the Charter.)"
I think most nations and governments have to deal with this issue.
My personal belief is that you can say what you want, and like Vaq stated, think what you want, but you ARE responsible for publicy making statements of racial or religious issues.
Essentially a balance must be struck. Free speech must be protected, but so must the rights of individual people and groups of people that hold a certain set of beliefs.
If you want to think that "X" race that follows "X" religion are bad people and should be dealt with in the most extreme manner, that is fine with me.
But when individuals go public with this sort of intolerance and hate, i develop a problem with them.
My fingers also go tired....
but in summary: "not all people are entitled to their opinions"
-
"""just try shouting FIRE!!! in a crowded movie theater)."""""
but , but , but ...what if the theater IS on fire????
-
Originally posted by john9001
"""just try shouting FIRE!!! in a crowded movie theater)."""""
but , but , but ...what if the theater IS on fire????
I should have written "such as the false report of fire in a crowded movie theater." Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
-
Is this sort of thing is what the French were keeping themselves busy with in the summer of 1940? :D
-
You do have freedom of speech in France, although you might not be aware of it :). AFAIK, France has adopted the European Convention of Human Rights, as has most of the EU,which guarantees your right to free speech.
Daff
-
freedom of speech does not mean that one cannot be held accountable for what one says. otherwise fraud would be legal, which it is not, unless you have several hundred grand to give to politicians. in that case it is not free
-
France does not recognize freedom of speech the way the civilized world does- however, they recognize the right to litter, date 12 year olds, treat tourists rudely, never bathe and surrender should Germany even sneeze in their direction.
VAQ, FWIW that was very well written and informative. Thanks for the history lesson and <>.
-
Originally posted by Daff
You do have freedom of speech in France, although you might not be aware of it :). AFAIK, France has adopted the European Convention of Human Rights, as has most of the EU,which guarantees your right to free speech.
Daff
yep ... in fact what I wanted to point is that you can't say "Hey I can say whatever I want : see the 1st ammendement"
you can say what you want but you'll keep your responsibilty
@GRUN : I fart in your general direction ;)
-
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 ...)
-
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 :D (Not to mention that the extremist ended up looking like silly puppets too)
Ah, Straffo... "Houellebecq" .... :rolleyes:
-
nul n'est sensé ignorer la loi :)
translation : none shall ignore the law
-
Saw:
Vas-y, Houellebecq, quoi?
-
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.)
-
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
-
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. :D
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.
-
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 :(
-
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.
-
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
-
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 (http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s678264.htm)
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