Can we agree that no one cared about this law (passed in 2000) until it was used against a fascist?
Can we agree that no one cared about this law (passed in 2000) until it was used against a fascist?
Hope is the denial of reality
No, this is not close to censorship. Unless we agree that showing snuff films in public is okay. Are you okay with that?
There is a limit to everything. The Free Speech Morons usually forget about that. Everything has a consequence - Free Speech Morons usually want their cake and eat it, too. They want to be able to say the most despicable things and also want not to be held accountable. Well, here's the thing: It does not work that way. You say something and someone else will react to that. And sometimes we as a society decide that this reaction is not something we want.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
No, we really don't. We just put our limit well beyond where you would. We think "it directly leads to harm" to be the reasonable limit. You think "it's about something I dislike or can be used to take whacks at someone I don't like, to be that limit.
EVERYTHING causes a reaction. In fact, literally everything causes a negative reaction. That's not a good enough standard because none of us wants to ban everything. If you're targeting negative reactions, you need to determine how proximate, how predictable, and how severe the negative reaction is. In your case, the answer is "not proximate in the least," it looks to be at least third-order reactions and maybe fourth-order reactions. And your "predictable" bit is totally subjective on who you think is going to be prosecuted in a particular instance.Everything has a consequence - Free Speech Morons usually want their cake and eat it, too. They want to be able to say the most despicable things and also want not to be held accountable. Well, here's the thing: It does not work that way. You say something and someone else will react to that. And sometimes we as a society decide that this reaction is not something we want.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Snore. Aren't you over this recent habit of strawmanning, misinterpreting and mis-attributing views yet? How long do you intend to carry on? In one thread after another you've been slinging snark at your fantasies and the views you imagine people hold rather than engaging in the kind of thoughtful discussion and debate that was once your signum. It's getting tiresome. No-one on this forum sincerely believes that freedom of speech should only encompass the things they like. Not a single person. Stop this nonsense.
Last edited by Aimless; 03-05-2017 at 06:01 PM.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
This is not entirely accurate. The provision in question can be found here:
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/conte...le/Code_33.pdf
The decision and their reasoning can be found here:ARTICLE 227-24 (Ordinance no. 2000-916 of 19 September 2000 Article 3 Official Journal of 22 September 2000 in force 1 January 2002)
The manufacture, transport, distribution by whatever means and however supported, of a message bearing a pornographic or violent character or a character seriously violating human dignity, or the trafficking in such a message, is punished by three years' imprisonment and a fine of €75,000, where the message may be seen or perceived by a
minor.
Where the offences under the present article are committed through the press or by broadcasting, the specific legal provisions governing those matters are applicable to define the persons who are responsible.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/...ML&language=EN
You obviously can't persuasively argue that Le Pen was deliberately inciting jihadist violence. It may be possible to argue that these images have the unintended effect of encouraging extremists to take the final step into outright terrorism (one reason why French news sources have of late been reluctant to publish images of terrorists) but that's not a matter for the law to decide. The argument being made is that the dissemination of these images violates human dignity according to the standards of the French criminal code.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Listen, the tired old "Freedom Of Speech Wharrgarble!"-argument is pretty much the end of any discussion. As soon as someone trots it out you know that there's no rational thought left - because that argument is part of a creed and, like any system of belief, impervious to logical arguments.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
It is always the big government proponents that are the first to attack the idea of freedom of speech. They are always deeply afraid of the people themselves since they think they are stupid and most be governed by the 'elites.' Raw speech is too dangerous a weapon to have over the simple and must be curtailed by those who can handle it. Isn't that right Kenny?
Hey, remember when you were calling everyone who knew what the fuck they were talking about an 'elitist' back during the Bush era, on Atari?
That line really has not aged well.
Last edited by Steely Glint; 03-05-2017 at 10:54 PM.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
I sincerely believe that for some of our more obnoxious members, particularly Lewk and Khend, that in actual practice they really do believe that only the things they like should fall under free speech. I do not think Khend is capable in practice of seeing validity in Voltaire's famous sentiment.
But hey, if you feel this is strawmanning and something that bores you, maybe you should grow a fucking pair and challenge the straw-men Khend throws out which prompt them first. Apparently I'm offending you but you just gloss over Khend saying Rand approves of "kill the Jews," "fire in a crowded theater" or that ALL of us "Free Speech Morons usually want their cake and eat it, too. They want to be able to say the most despicable things and also want not to be held accountable"
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
No I've stated that people who make false reports should be prosecuted. IE the Duke Lacross case. Do you really think the prosecutor should have passed on the the girl who cried wolf when it was clear she was lying through her teeth?
Assembly is absolutely a right however your freedom to assembly does not give you the right to bar other people from travel. You can peacefully assemble just don't block traffic, don't block business entrances and don't block the ability to go about their lives. I don't actually believe you think otherwise.
A general rule of thumb is if you are OK *from your preferred view of what should or shouldn't be legal* with a protest (say pipeline, say oil company, say federal government) you MUST be OK with that SAME protest being carried out against public schools while class is in session and your family members. IE if it is OK to block a work crew from getting to work it must also be OK with people blocking your family member from getting to work. IE if it is OK to prevent free travel down a road, it is OK to prevent free travel of a school bus down a road. If you are not OK with that sort of thing than you can't be OK with the former and have any belief in law and order - you would be like the liberal wannabe-fascists on college campus that believe one rule for thee and one rule for thee.
I love how you managed to call for an end to "inconvenient" protests and call someone else a fascist in the same paragraph.
Hope is the denial of reality
Yup. Because I don't believe in anarchy. Protest is absolutely fine. Blocking traffic is not. Preventing someone from walking down the road is not. Preventing someone from entering their place of business is not. Protest is legal, however all other laws still need to be complied with. You can't just go run up and commit a murder (or any other criminal act) simply because you decide to call it a protest.
This isn't rocket science.
Do you know what brought about change in the Civil Rights movement? Arab Spring? Ukraine? Inconvenient protests. For someone who thinks we should have guns to ward off a tyrannical government, it's rather odd that you'd remove the far better (and less violent) alternative.
Hope is the denial of reality
So if I call it a protest I can go rob a store? Kidnap people? Prevent ambulances from getting to hospitals?
I'm legit asking you straight up. Do you believe the 1st amendment gives you the right to break other laws like the ones I've just outlined? This isn't a question on "well how should society handle.." this is a straight up legal question.
And you've declared the foremost standard for what constitutes a false report is whether it leads to a conviction or not.
You didn't want to just go after that girl, you wanted to go after everyone who couldn't prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt.IE the Duke Lacross case. Do you really think the prosecutor should have passed on the the girl who cried wolf when it was clear she was lying through her teeth?
You know, only one of those things is guaranteed by the Constitution. And it's not travel.Assembly is absolutely a right however your freedom to assembly does not give you the right to bar other people from travel.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
In specific I didn't know about this law or ever see it get exercised so I didn't care about it specifically since it was unknown.
In general I do and always have cared about the law.
As for who the law was used against its irrelevant. Laws are meaningless if only liberals you agree with get rights and fascists you oppose don't.
Last edited by Loki; 03-06-2017 at 08:25 PM.
Hope is the denial of reality
That seems like a crime very different to "blocking roads." Pretty sure people do occasionally die as a consequence of non-violent resistance. The question is are we willing to tolerate that as a society to preserve our freedoms? After all, you guys are quite willing to tolerate the annual murder of thousands with guns for the same reason.
Also odd that a libertarian would be looking for ways to strengthen the government's hand at the expense of those trying to challenge said government.
Hope is the denial of reality
This is absolute nonsense. It makes about as much saying that a person who thinks murder should be illegal must also think that war should be illegal or that drugs should be illegal. Or that a person who thinks abortion should be illegal must also think that capital punishment should be abolished.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
First of all, I don't believe I can change Khen's posting style.
Secondly--and more importantly--I don't actually know what RB's position is on the matter of whether or not it should be illegal for him to say, for example, "All Jews should be killed," or even, "Kill all the Jews."
Believing in the complete freedom--legally speaking--to say such things is a legitimate and not-uncommon position to take on freedom of speech. Not everyone shares the same views on the legal aspects of incitement to do illegal things. Even the matter of yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater may be legitimately held to be protected speech in and of itself, and only prosecuted insofar as it disrupts other people's enjoyment of a legal activity they've paid for, or disrupts someone's business.
This kind of view would be consistent with Lewk's oft-repeated views on whether or not people should be held responsible for saying things that others actually act on (eg. "you should kill yourself"). I don't believe Lewk thinks that it should be illegal to say "allahu akbar and death to all Americans jihad woohoo" even though he believes that saying such things would justify being investigated in all manner of more or less questionable ways. I don't know for sure, but my impression has been that Dread, for example, would support the right to say "kill all the jews!!" or at least "all Jews should be killed". So, afaik, RB's response to Khen's accusation--that he wants people to be able to say things like "kill all the Jews"--may very well be, "Yes, that's exactly what I want."
Your position may differ from theirs, sure, but, at the end of the day, I don't believe your assertion that some people on this forum "really do believe that only the things they like should fall under free speech" is accurate. If you were to ask Khen and Lewk, I believe each would say something along the lines of, "No, I don't believe that," with varying levels of vitriol. Of course you're free to interpret their posts and their behavior in any way you please irrespective of what they may claim about their own beliefs. That's often a necessary part of this sort of discussion. I just think that the interpretation may not hold up to scrutiny.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yet Lewk is assuredly even less flexible and likely to change than Khend and you'll go after him the same way you just went after me and for the same stated reasons. Bullshit excuse.
You don't actually know the limits Khend is willing to tolerate either. More bullshit.Secondly--and more importantly--I don't actually know what RB's position is on the matter of whether or not it should be illegal for him to say, for example, "All Jews should be killed," or even, "Kill all the Jews."
They don't. There's somewhat more consensus about the meaning of incitement though. It involves persuading people, or threatening them, encouraging them, instigating them, etc. You know what it doesn't include? Highlighting something that they'll make use of for their own purposes. Which is why, for instance, incitement is NOT what Le Pen is being investigated for.Believing in the complete freedom--legally speaking--to say such things is a legitimate and not-uncommon position to take on freedom of speech. Not everyone shares the same views on the legal aspects of incitement to do illegal things.
I don't believe your assertions either, they're clearly full of shit and for some clearly forum-partisanship reasons. But not believing them doesn't make them a straw man.Your position may differ from theirs, sure, but, at the end of the day, I don't believe your assertion that some people on this forum "really do believe that only the things they like should fall under free speech" is accurate.
Lewk, at least, has actually sometimes acknowledged specific that he might not like something but that doesn't make it illegal. He weakens that by caviling enough to get it disregarded but it's there. Khend has never posted even that much. Khend has always supported any legal action against those people and causes he does not like on here, and he has always attacked any against those he does like. He has provided ample material demonstrating these patterns.If you were to ask Khen and Lewk, I believe each would say something along the lines of, "No, I don't believe that," with varying levels of vitriol. Of course you're free to interpret their posts and their behavior in any way you please irrespective of what they may claim about their own beliefs. That's often a necessary part of this sort of discussion. I just think that the interpretation may not hold up to scrutiny.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"