Liberty, Paris style

[Old Man Gravy]

I wasn't really sure where to post this (either here or in politics), but I hate the political forum so it goes here:

At the behest of Islamic extremists who take offense and threaten violence at any suggestion that they are intolerant, Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey Socialist Kangaroo Court fines animal rights nut for daring to openly say that socialist economic policies lead to economic disaster and Muslims are responsible for terrorist acts.

Good to know that France’s embrace of liberal values and tolerance has extended into the 21st century. Who knows what would happen if they just allowed people to speak their minds willy-nilly? You’d probably get crazy folks stating with impunity all kinds of controversial, clearly false opinions such as, “the sky is blue”, “basketball players are tall”, and “the French are cowardly opportunists with poor hygiene.”

Of course, Bardot, a well-known nutcase, didn't help herself much:

Bardot, who was not present for the verdict, denied the charges in a tearful court appearance last month, saying her book did not target Islam or people from North Africa.

She told the court France was going through a period of decadence and said she opposed interracial marriage

“I was born in 1934, at that time interracial marriage wasn’t approved of,” she said.

“There are many new languages in the new Europe. Mediocrity is taking over from beauty and splendor. There are many people who are filthy, badly dressed and badly shaven.”

Well, that oughta appease the European PC mullahs!

I seriously got this weird feeling from reading this thing, like it was a news story from Bizarro World or something. All the parties involved are so ridiculous, a “tolerance” fine is levied for an expression of free speech, and the only thing that doesn’t seem preposterous in the whole story are some of the statements that led to the court action in the first place. It’s like the Keystone Kops fining Inspector Cluseau for saying Charlie Chaplain was goofy after Laurel and Hardy got upset about the comment and petitioned the Kops to do something about it. And the journalist reports it with a straight face.

[Anaxagoras]

I'd just like to quote a bit that I found particularly funny:

Four months earlier, a court fined her [Bardot] for saying France was being overrun by sheep-slaughtering Muslims.

Sheep-slaughtering Muslims??? What the hell kind of insult is that?

The court fined her??? What the hell kind of reaction is that?


I often wonder if we've entered a period of history where parody has become irrelevant. Then someone goes and does (or says) something even more ridiculous, and I think "Ah. So *that's* how the previous state of affairs could have been parodied." But then again... why bother with the parody? Why not just wait a week, then read the news again?

[Jason McCullough]

As stupid as I think French speech restriction laws are, it doesn't sound like she was making boring old statements in there about gays and muslims. Does anyone have quotes?

[Linoleum]

Sheep-slaughtering Muslims??? What the hell kind of insult is that?

Depending on their level of devoutness, it isn't an insult.

[Anaxagoras]

Sheep-slaughtering Muslims??? What the hell kind of insult is that?

Depending on their level of devoutness, it isn't an insult.

That was precisely my point. Can you imagine calling a Hindu "You cow reverer!!!"

Hindu response: Yes? And?

[shift6]

The French government is all about supporting Arabs. Except females who wear traditional head wrappings. Unless they struggle against the US. Depending on what month it is.

OK I'm confused.

[quatoria]

As stupid as I think French speech restriction laws are, it doesn't sound like she was making boring old statements in there about gays and muslims. Does anyone have quotes?

In her book, she also attacks homosexuals as “fairground freaks,” condemns the presence of women in government and denounces the “scandal of unemployment benefits.”

A link to the site of one of her defenders, the 'Stormfront White Nationalist Community' - http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=131280

"Our lovely, kind streetwalkers have been replaced by girls from the East, Nigerians, travelers, transsexuals, drag queens, bearers of AIDS, and other friendly gifts. . . . Having a risk-free go is becoming a real exploit."

Quite the insightful, enlightened book, it would seem. The majority of sites I found endorsing/defending the book, when I searched for quotations from it to provide you, were either white supremecist groups or xenophobic anti-islam sites. (IE, their front page content ranged from 'proud white woman Bridget Bardot under attack' to 'Why Islam Must Be Utterly Destroyed'.)

While I know it's specious reasoning, the character of her defenders alone makes me fairly suspicious of her position, frankly. I also came across statements that she recently married a well known racist and xenophobe, but I don't know who that is, or whether or not it's true, so perhaps a French poster can confirm or deny that report.

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, I'd prefer the french had our first amendment, but she also sounds like a right bastard.

[Mike Hussey]

While I know it's specious reasoning, the character of her defenders alone makes me fairly suspicious of her position, frankly. I also came across statements that she recently married a well known racist and xenophobe, but I don't know who that is, or whether or not it's true, so perhaps a French poster can confirm or deny that report.

I'm not French, but it's certainly true that her latest husband is a leading member of Jean-Marie Le Pen's neo-nazi Front National.

Le Pen once described the holocaust as 'a mere detail of history' and told a leading French Jewish politician that her time in a concentration camp as a young girl 'had done her no harm'.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

I wasn't really sure where to post this (either here or in politics), but I hate the political forum so it goes here:

So you thought you'd turn this into an extension of the P&R forum? Do you want another forum to hate, or what?

Where do you see them fining her for criticizing "socialist" policy?

Anyway, I really don't see what the problem is here, although that's probably just my European Social Democratic craven opportunism talking.

[DennyA]

What I find most shocking about all of this is that Bridget Bardot is 69 years old.

Scary to imagine one of the lust objects of your teen years cruising the streets with a walker...

[Squirrel Killer]

Anyway, I really don't see what the problem is here, although that's probably just my European Social Democratic craven opportunism talking.

You don't see a problem with her getting fined for speaking her mind, batshit insane as it is?

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Anyway, I really don't see what the problem is here, although that's probably just my European Social Democratic craven opportunism talking.

You don't see a problem with her getting fined for speaking her mind, batshit insane as it is?

No, not to the extent it was in the original post. Laws like these are pretty common in European countries, they're certainly not restricted to France. I can certainly understand that Americans, who generally seem have a different attitude to the principle of the right to free speech, would disagree, but in a French/European context it's much less problematic. It's not like there haven't been debate on the subject, but the general consensus seems to be that some forms of speech are not always worth protecting. Personally, I'm against the law we have here, but not diametrically, fundamentally opposed, as I understand the reasons for it.

So, in other words, I understand why people would have problem with it, but I can't understand the seeming outrage and ridicule in OMGs first post.

[Squirrel Killer]

So, in other words, I understand why people would have problem with it, but I can't understand the seeming outrage and ridicule in OMGs first post.

Remind me to be unmoved when your government decides that it does like what you say.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

So, in other words, I understand why people would have problem with it, but I can't understand the seeming outrage and ridicule in OMGs first post.

Remind me to be unmoved when your government decides that it does like what you say.

? Erm, what do you mean, exactly?

[novacane]

Incitement to racial hatred is an offence throughout the EU.

Sheep-slaughtering Muslims??? What the hell kind of insult is that?

It's likely she was pulled up over the 'being overrun' part, rather than the sheep part. Given the fact that she's a 'celebrity' and is known to have ties to the far right, her publishing of those remarks falls within the sphere of incitement to racial hatred.

[Anaxagoras]

Incitement to racial hatred is an offence throughout the EU.

Sheep-slaughtering Muslims??? What the hell kind of insult is that?

It's likely she was pulled up over the 'being overrun' part, rather than the sheep part. Given the fact that she's a 'celebrity' and is known to have ties to the far right, her publishing of those remarks falls within the sphere of incitement to racial hatred.

Ah... it makes sense now. I thought over sensitive people were taking offense at "sheep-slaughtering", but it was the general tone that was the problem.

[Ben]

quatoria- Glad to know you've deployed your google-fu to determine what speech is worth protecting.

Why, you think her husband might be a racist! That's clearly highly relevant.

[Chris Nahr]

That's how thought crimes are usually handled in Europe. What she actually said is barely relevant. She's judged for having the wrong ideas and associating with the wrong people, and they'd fine or jail her eventually regardless of what she's saying or doing. The judges simply imagine her intending to utter illegal opinions, and that's enough. People with the right friends and who are favored by the public opinion could make the exact same statements without any legal trouble.

[Squirrel Killer]

So, in other words, I understand why people would have problem with it, but I can't understand the seeming outrage and ridicule in OMGs first post.

Remind me to be unmoved when your government decides that it does like what you say.

? Erm, what do you mean, exactly?

What I mean is pretty simple.

Normally, I would defend your right to say whatever the hell you wanted. So if your government decided that you shouldn't say "Norwegian high schools aren't any more meaningful than US ones", I would defend your right to say it anyway. However, since you think it's no big deal for the government to punish you for what you say, I know better than to try to defend you.

[LarryLard]

Yes, the First Amendment does protect some 'hate speech' which would fall foul of European law. But even in the US not all speech is free.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

What I mean is pretty simple.

Normally, I would defend your right to say whatever the hell you wanted. So if your government decided that you shouldn't say "Norwegian high schools aren't any more meaningful than US ones", I would defend your right to say it anyway. However, since you think it's no big deal for the government to punish you for what you say, I know better than to try to defend you.

Uh, did you mean to say "Remind me to be unmoved when your government decides that it doesn't like what you say." ? I thought that might be it, but I wasn't sure.

Anyway: I don't know about France, but here, free speech is generally constitutionally protected:

Article 100

There shall be liberty of the Press. No person may be punished for any writing, whatever its contents, which he has caused to be printed or published, unless he wilfully and manifestly has either himself shown or incited others to disobedience to the laws, contempt of religion, morality or the constitutional powers, or resistance to their orders, or has made false and defamatory accusations against anyone. Everyone shall be free to speak his mind frankly on the administration of the State and on any other subject whatsoever.

(The Norwegian constitution is in large part inspired by the American, IIRC.)

The anti-racism law makes it illegal to through speech or other communication made public threaten, disparage, or expose to hatred, persecution or strong disrespect a person or group of persons on the basis of their faith, race, skin, or national or ethnic background. Same goes for homosexuals.

I think the vast majority of Norwegians would consider the possibility of the government instituting a greater restriction on free speech extremely far-fetched: there is absolutely no political culture that would support it, it's basically unenforcable, it's against the constitution, and parliament would toss out the government that tried it VERY quickly. I think most also see a distinction between banning speech that can be very harmful for groups that are already vulnerable and greater restrictions on free speech.

[Squirrel Killer]

Uh, did you mean to say "Remind me to be unmoved when your government decides that it doesn't like what you say." ? I thought that might be it, but I wasn't sure.

:oops: Um...yep, that's it. Oops.

[Rywill]

The anti-racism law makes it illegal to through speech or other communication made public threaten, disparage, or expose to hatred, persecution or strong disrespect a person or group of persons on the basis of their faith, race, skin, or national or ethnic background. Same goes for homosexuals.
. . . I think most [Norweigians] see a distinction between banning speech that can be very harmful for groups that are already vulnerable and greater restrictions on free speech.

I don't see why, honestly. You can't disparage someone's faith, race, skin, national or ethnic background, or sexual preference. Is it a huge leap to say you can't disparage someone's political affiliation? Political views? Group association (e.g., what if I'm a Goth, Punk, etc...what if I'm a gang-member)? Income level?

I think the big difference is just one of how you look at the problem. America--or at least, the American Constitution--takes the position that the best weapon against bad ideas is good ideas, not censorship. I won't speak for what the Norweigian (or European) position is, but whatever it is, it's clearly at odds with the American one.

[Anaxagoras]

I don't see why, honestly. You can't disparage someone's faith, race, skin, national or ethnic background, or sexual preference. Is it a huge leap to say you can't disparage someone's political affiliation? Political views? Group association (e.g., what if I'm a Goth, Punk, etc...what if I'm a gang-member)? Income level?

Such a slipperly slope isn't valid. You choose your political affiliation, political views, group association, etc. However, someone's race, skin, background, or preference are all given to you upon birth; you're born with them and have to live with them. The only iffy article in there is that of faith.... but such an article is generally considered such an inherent part of you that it can almost be considered alongside the other instrinsic traits listed.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

. . . I think most [Norweigians] see a distinction between banning speech that can be very harmful for groups that are already vulnerable and greater restrictions on free speech.

I don't see why, honestly. You can't disparage someone's faith, race, skin, national or ethnic background, or sexual preference. Is it a huge leap to say you can't disparage someone's political affiliation? Political views? Group association (e.g., what if I'm a Goth, Punk, etc...what if I'm a gang-member)? Income level?

Well, first of all, that's a pretty fast and loose translation, and not all of the words are entirely equivalent. "Jeer" might be closer than "disparage", I don't know. There are certainly pretty few convictions from the law, and the Supreme Court in particular seems determined to err on the side of free speech.

I would say that it's a pretty big leap, yes. You're no longer talking about groups that have very serious problems with racism and the like, and who need protection.

I think the big difference is just one of how you look at the problem. America--or at least, the American Constitution--takes the position that the best weapon against bad ideas is good ideas, not censorship.

Personally, I agree, and I don't think there's such a large difference as you seem to think. The reasoning is, I suppose, thet countering racism with good ideas is all very well and good in theory, but that's often little comfort to the victims of racism in practice.

[Rywill]

Such a slipperly slope isn't valid. You choose your political affiliation, political views, group association, etc. However, someone's race, skin, background, or preference are all given to you upon birth; you're born with them and have to live with them. The only iffy article in there is that of faith.... but such an article is generally considered such an inherent part of you that it can almost be considered alongside the other instrinsic traits listed.

You don't choose your political views any more than you choose your faith. And I've met lots of people who claim they don't choose their group affiliations, either--"I don't choose to be a Goth. I am a Goth." Just like sexual preference--outsiders often think of it as a choice, but those in the minority say that it's inborn. And are you saying poverty is a choice? Pretending that there's a bright line between "I'm outlawing bigoted speech" and "I'm outlawing classist speech" or "I'm outlawing affiliation speech" doesn't get us anywhere. There's no bright line, and if we're going to start making those laws, we need to face up to where they go.

It also leads us down the opposite path--should all immutable traits be considered equal? What if someone publishes something disparaging tall people, or blondes? Should mutable traits always get no protection? Does that include stuff like religion? Place of citizenship? Place of residence?

Well, first of all, that's a pretty fast and loose translation, and not all of the words are entirely equivalent. "Jeer" might be closer than "disparage", I don't know. There are certainly pretty few convictions from the law, and the Supreme Court in particular seems determined to err on the side of free speech.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I picked "disparage" out of your list of verbs describing (quoting, I assumed) Norway's law.

I would say that it's a pretty big leap, yes. You're no longer talking about groups that have very serious problems with racism and the like, and who need protection.

Well, obviously I agree with you that they need no protection, since I think nobody needs protection from mere speech. But I don't see why you would think, say, Asians need protection, but the poor don't; or that Muslims need protection, but punks don't. To me, Asians and Muslims have a lot more ability to speak for themselves and protect themselves.

The reasoning is, I suppose, thet countering racism with good ideas is all very well and good in theory, but that's often little comfort to the victims of racism in practice.

See, I think this really illustrates the difference between the way I look at this, and the way you do. I absolutely agree that people are harmed by racist speech, and that the harm is only partially alleviated by supportive speech. The difference, though, is that I think people have a fundamental right to be racists, if that's what they believe, and that they have a fundamental right to express their beliefs, no matter how much that might hurt the feelings or esteem of others. Just like someone can come up to me and say I'm short and ugly--both immutable traits--no matter how much that might upset me. Is it wrong for someone to call me short and ugly? Hell yeah. Should they go to jail or pay a fine over it? No fucking way.

[quatoria]

quatoria- Glad to know you've deployed your google-fu to determine what speech is worth protecting.

Why, you think her husband might be a racist! That's clearly highly relevant.

Nice try, Ben, but I made it clear that I had no personal knowledge about it one way or another, and was simply repeating, without comment, a detail published in one of the articles about her. Furthermore, I made no characterization as to whether or not her speech deserves to be protected.

What I *did* do, however, was infer in a sarcastic manner that a characterization of her speech as 'racist' does not appear to be lacking factual basis.

What's the problem, Ben? Are you lacking in reading comprehension skills, or do you lack the confidence to address statements as they are written, without trying to warp them to make them easier to assail?

[Anaxagoras]

You don't choose your political views any more than you choose your faith. And I've met lots of people who claim they don't choose their group affiliations, either--"I don't choose to be a Goth. I am a Goth." Just like sexual preference--outsiders often think of it as a choice, but those in the minority say that it's inborn. And are you saying poverty is a choice? Pretending that there's a bright line between "I'm outlawing bigoted speech" and "I'm outlawing classist speech" or "I'm outlawing affiliation speech" doesn't get us anywhere. There's no bright line, and if we're going to start making those laws, we need to face up to where they go.

\

This is a very American attitude... which is not to say that it's wrong or right, but it does mean that Europeans (at least the nationalities that I'm familiar with) don't have to worry about the slippery slope you're talking about.... the line is very clear to them.

That whole Goth thing (or any other group or political affiliation thing) of "I don't choose to be a Goth... I just am a Goth" is not a necessary equation. They can say those words if they want, but at the same time they could stop wearing black clothes and moping around any time they want to. Similarly if I heard a good argument, I could suddenly become a raging Reagan fan, or Ben might start loving Clinton. Change is definitely possible, so I definitely consider those choices. I am kinda confused why religion isn't included in the "choice" category, but whatever.

As for the "gays choose to be gay", that has been so thoroughly debunked by anecdotal and scientific evidence that nobody who isn't dogmatically attatched to the idea still believes it. So I think it's a pretty safe bet to inclue "sexual orientation" in with race, background, etc.

Of course, establishing that the slippery slope is illusory doesn't mean that your fundamental objection to the European position is wrong; you seem to be in favor of fighting ideas with ideas even if they are a clearly separate category.

[Jason McCullough]

As much as I prefer the US first amendment, it takes one word to explain why Europe has these speech codes:

Hitler.

Now don't get all Godwin's Law on me; the holocaust and the mass butchery of World War II *the* root reasons they adopted these laws in the post-war period. I still disagree with them and think they're ripe for abuse, but I can understand where they're coming from. World War II killed 56,000,000 people; taking out China, Japan, and the US, you get 42,000,000 people. You can draw a shaky straight line from the eliminationist, dehumanizing rhetoric of the period to the ensuing slaughter.

Here in the US I really don't think we understand the scale of the carnage; we just weren't close enough to it, losing a comparatively paltry 500,000. I think if the US willingly marched along to the mass hysteria of the 30s and killed and lost millions, followed up by a chance to redraw our constitutions, we'd think differently. Respect for letting people going beyond the boundaries of what's polite is one of the many aspects of a society dependent on security, first and foremost; when you wake up from a sleepwalking nightmare and find out you butchered half a continent, you're going to have some.....well, I don't want to call it paranoia, because they think it's perfectly rational and ethical, and I don't think I have any right to tell them otherwise.

If we were talking about China, yeah, obviously, give me a break. But context matters.

Again, I don't like the european speech laws and wish they'd get rid of them. But like a neighbor wasting money on a useless, expensive security system after his wife is brutally killed and raped at home, I can understand where they're coming from.