France arrests 54 in hate speech crackdown
Source: AP
France arrests 54 in hate speech crackdown as new Charlie Hebdo issue sells out
France ordered prosecutors around the country to crack down on hate speech, anti-Semitism and glorifying terrorism and announced Wednesday it was sending an aircraft carrier to the Mideast to work more closely with the U.S.-led coalition fighting Islamic State militants.
Authorities said 54 people had been arrested for hate speech and defending terrorism in the last week. The crackdown came as Charlie Hebdo's defiant new issue sold out before dawn around Paris, with scuffles at kiosks over dwindling copies of the satirical weekly that fronted the Prophet Muhammad anew on its cover.
After terror attacks killed 20 people in Paris last week, including three gunmen, President Francois Hollande said the situation "justifies the presence of our aircraft carrier." One of the gunmen claimed allegiance to the Islamic State group.
France is already carrying out airstrikes against the extremist group in Iraq. Hollande spoke aboard the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier to members of France's military.
Read more: http://www.aol.com/article/2015/01/14/charlie-hebdo-sells-out-before-dawn-in-paris/21129392/?cps=gravity_1967_7169750158549371894
WOW
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)"Like many European countries, France has strong laws against hate speech, especially anti-Semitism in the wake of the Holocaust.
In a message distributed to all French prosecutors and judges, the Justice Ministry laid out the legal basis for rounding up those who defend the Paris terror attacks as well as those responsible for racist or anti-Semitic words or acts. The order did not mention Islam."
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)those "Magical Shape Shifting Jews"
I saw that free gaza woman's tweet right after it happened trying to blame mossad. A tweet from a twit.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
King_David
(14,851 posts)Also claimed it was a black ops Mossad operation.
She's American .
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)
progressoid
(49,992 posts)
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)I'd love a magical shape-shifting Jew instead of a clown next year. 
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)
His real name is Mo Noodleman and he is a tailor during the day.
branford
(4,462 posts)Damn recessive genetics! It's just not fair.
Response to Rhinodawg (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
branford
(4,462 posts)than arresting people for saying unpopular things.
I truly appreciate American free speech jurisprudence.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Speech that advocates imminent violence is not free speech.
In the US our Supreme Court defined groups that are protected from discrimination as first and foremost (the most highly protected) those groups defined by an immutable characteristic, a characteristic like race that cannot be changed.
We enjoy freedom of religion, but religion is not an immutable characteristic. We can change it. The law protects us from discrimination based on religion because our freedom of religion is protected by the Constitution.
A crime can be a hate crime. But legal speech such as humorous speech, satire or ridicule cannot be hate speech unless it can be a crime. So cartoons or other humor ridiculing religion is not hate speech in most cases. It could be considered hate speech under certain unusual circumstances in my opinion, but that would be highly unusual.
This case kind of explains why religion is subject to satire and ridicule in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell
The great French dramatist, Moliere (died centuries ago so it's a well established part of French culture) made fun of a member of the clergy or a very sanctimonious type of guy in his play Tartuffe. Worth a read.
The French have a long tradition of ridiculing religion. Not all French but many French people enjoy that tradition.
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)"Hate crimes" in America are just normal crimes with more severe sentences due to the targeting of certain statutorily defined groups, and are still legally controversial.
The nature and extent of Free speech also has nothing to do with whether it involves "immutable characteristics" or religion. The greatest protections are provided to political speech, a term interpreted VERY broadly, and commercial speech, with also received extensive protections. The Falwell case was entirely consistent with these notions, and even went so far as to protect speech that might be false. A bigoted editorial received the exact same protection as a bigoted satirical cartoon.
In this instance, France is actually arresting some people for only hate speech, on the basis that their statements are racist or antisemitic. This would be unquestionably illegal in the USA.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)with the crime and may make it possible to determine that the crime is a hate crime.
For example if someone commits a crime against someone of another race and leaves graffiti that is racist, it may make a charge of hate crime more likely because of the graffiti which is a form of speech. Would you agree?
Yes. What France is doing would be illegal in the US.
France has other traditions.
branford
(4,462 posts)Hates crimes are usually really about more severe sentencing than being separate and distinct crimes (although sometimes they are in fact different statutes).
For instance, if someone commits a burglary or assault, and chooses their target because they are a minority or other protected category of person, they could potentially face a harsher sentence for the underlying crime. In answer to your question, leaving racist graffiti could in fact result in a more severe sentence than graffiti of a more mundane nature. The fact that sentences could differ based on otherwise protected expression is what makes "hate crimes" laws so controversial in the legal community.
The extremely broad protections for offensive expression and even sometimes falsehoods are relatively unique to American jurisprudence. Other liberal democracies such as most of western Europe, Canada and Australia tend to value social order over pure expression, and therefore routinely limit certain speech than could never be restricted in the USA. Our First Amendment jurisprudence is more of an anomaly than a standard when it comes to free speech.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)rights to free speech in their workplaces was greater than that. Here, most employees work on an at-will basis. If they hold an opinion their boss disapproves of, there is no law protecting them from being dismissed. But, at least in the late 1990s in Germany, the right to free speech which is more limited in other ways there than here, was enforceable not just against the government, but against private parties meaning that, for example, someone expressing a negative opinion about the use of nuclear energy could not be fired by a boss who disagreed with his stance.
So free speech is defined differently in different countries.
The French have a long history of satirizing religious leaders.
branford
(4,462 posts)than free speech principles. It's difficult to fire workers, with or without cause, in Europe for almost any reason, inclusive of speech.
In the workplace in the USA, employers also have free speech rights, and when they conflict with their employees, the employers unsurprisingly prevail. However, our civil rights and some labor statutes do provide significant protections to certain employee speech and conduct that trumps the speech right of employers and default at-will employment. For instance, employees cannot be terminated for discussing their desire to unionize, and speech that creates a hostile environment based on protected characteristics such as race, gender and religion, could result in significant legal liability for an employer.
When discussing freedom of speech, the default presumption is a situation where the government can or cannot penalize or restrict a citizens speech. The issues involving potential civil liability in the employment context is a far more complicated, dense and changing area of law.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)more generally apply to private relationships but are limited in other ways. As I recall, that is the difference. It is not specifically a matter of labor rights although those too are greater in Germany. But in this instance it has to do with the right of free speech itself. As you pointed out, certain types of speech are not "free" in certain European countries. But the right of free speech does not just limit the government.
So it is not a mater of labor law in Germany. Sorry I don't have the time to get the research on this right now.Will try to get back to you on it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)state action, action by our government. In Germany, this article from 1989 explains that the German Basic Law which is like our Constitution to some extent influences decisions about private actions and private agreements.
When there is no state action in American law, the United States Constitution ordinarily has no effect at all. Under American doctrine, therefore, if there is state action constitutional rights theoretically apply with full vigor; if there is no state action, there are no constitutional rights. [[] Under the German Basic Law, however, the fact that a certain dispute of private law lies beyond where the state action line would be drawn under the United States Constitution has no particular meaning. The rules of private law are still "influenced" by the basic rights of the constitution. Thus the German constitution continues to have an impact in cases in which no state action would be found under American law.
http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2740&context=mlr
The article is long but interesting.
Of course, the article was written in 1989, so many new decisions have been issued by the German courts and some of the emphasis in the law may have shifted or even changed.
branford
(4,462 posts)does indeed generally constrain government. However, as I indicated earlier, Constitutional principles can nevertheless affect laws governing private or quasi-private relations.
I refer back to my examples of American civil rights and labor law. Under the guise of equal protection and related provisions, the government has set limits on certain discriminatory speech and conduct in the private workplace (e.g., Title VII, ADA, ADEA, etc.) or protected speech concerning unionization and collective worker rights (e.g., NLRA).
As an aside, although this discussion is most interesting, I haven't given these issue such detailed scholarly thought since law school. 
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The law may have changed since 1989. I studied this in the 1990s, but I have not revisited it. The basic tension between German constitutional law and civil law has probably not changed. I think that the contrast between German and American law is so interesting because it demonstrates how the law shapes a society and vice versa.
Equal protection and related provisions as you point out apply to discrimination and collective bargaining rights. But in our private relationships, we don't particularly have speech rights. I thought the article was very interesting with regard to the way the Germans reconcile what we would call slander and libel laws with their constitutional guarantee of free speech.
elleng
(131,032 posts)
DVDGuy
(53 posts)I think freedom of speech does have limits, it's just a matter of degree. The old line you hear on "Law & Order" whenever they debate this issue is that "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater", and obviously this is one extreme example. Speech that incite violence would also fall into this category.
For speech that may offend, my opinion is that some are okay and some are not okay. Speech that are used to spread hate and encourage discrimination, in my opinion, should be banned, although I agree that this sometimes requires a subjective assessment that may be considered unfair (and I guess that's what the courts are for).
Speech that offends, but do not promote hate or discrimination, should be allowed (the most recent Charlie Hebdo cover falls into this category, as while I'm sure some Muslims will find it offensive, as long as the covers do not promote hate or discrimination against these groups, then it should not be censored. I'm not sure about the covers and content that the Pope was finding offensive, but as long as they do promote hate or discrimination towards Catholics, then it's all fair game I feel).
The whole point of having freedom of speech is that so it does not discourage or prevent criticism for the benefit of our democratic system. But hateful speech not only does not help the political discourse, it hinders it and serves as a divisive force against democracy. So for me, freedom of speech laws and anti-discrimination laws do not conflict with each other, but any limits should be very well defined and free of the kind of vagueness that can be exploited to silence necessary speech.
branford
(4,462 posts)The holding was actually overturned in a subsequent Supreme Court Case, and it's an oversimplification of constitutional law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
Criminalizing speech that may incite violence, by itself, also would be unconstitutional in this country. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969), the Supreme Court determined determine when inflammatory speech intending to advocate illegal action can be restricted. The standard developed determined that speech advocating the use of force or crime could only be proscribed where two conditions were satisfied: (1) the advocacy is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and (2) the advocacy is also “likely to incite or produce such action.”
More importantly, the level of potential offensiveness of speech is totally irrelevant under US law. Your delineation of what speech should be permissible, no less point of freedom of speech, is not recognized in American jurisprudence. Free speech is necessary for the exchange of ideas in a free society. The government should never be in the position of determining which are ideas are acceptable and which are not. Never forget that liberal-minded people might not always be in control of government.
In fact, much of the free speech jurisprudence in the USA originated with liberal groups like the ACLU, and involved cases to protect far left groups like communists and socialists from institutional discrimination. The same rights the protect groups like the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church also protect the speech of many here on DU. Moreover, to say that "hateful speech" does not help political discourse is absurd. It just that you may not like some of the discourse it engenders. In any event, it would be legally and politically impossible in the USA to create any legal bright lines concerning acceptable speech, and we culturally err on the side of more speech and ideas, not less. Speech is countered with more speech, not government restrictions.
I would also note that Europe, with all their "hate speech" laws, still manage to routinely elect violent far right and left groups to national and EU positions. Many of these officials make the worst Republicans look downright cuddly. These speech restriction have had little effect on opinions other than to relegate some speech underground. The USA, with our permissiveness concerning offensive and hateful speech, on the other hand, has not elected anyone like these individuals, as it would be considered publicly unacceptable, and our hatred and bigotry is in the open where it can be monitored, criticized and avoided.
DVDGuy
(53 posts)For example here in Australia (I'm Australian), we have the Racial Discrimination Act, which prohibits "Certain offensive behaviour will also be found discriminatory if it is likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate people of a certain race, colour or national or ethnic origin", among other acts of discrimination. Now this act was famously tested recently in case involving a conservative commentator and two articles he wrote, in which he claimed that light skinned Aborigines were only identifying themselves as Aboriginal for "personal gain". He was eventually found guilty by a judge:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-28/bolt-found-guilty-of-breaching-discrimination-act/3025918
Now this kind of speech would, I'm guessing, be perfectly legal in the US, but our democracy and "exchange of ideas" has not suffered as a result of these limits to free speech, nor have we elected any far right politicians to major political office. The far right here seems to have a much more difficult time getting their message across, compared to the situation in the US with the Tea Party, Fox News, the KKK, the Westboro Baptist Church, etc. While we do have right leaning media outlets, what they are "allowed" to say is far more limiting than what you could typically hear from Fox News, for example.
The USA, with our permissiveness concerning offensive and hateful speech, on the other hand, has not elected anyone like these individuals, as it would be considered publicly unacceptable, and our hatred and bigotry is in the open where it can be monitored, criticized and avoided.
I would also argue that some of the statements made by Tea Party politicians are not too different, or sometimes even worse, than those being made by far right politicians in Europe. And looking from our side, the the racial and religious tension within US society is far more divisive, prevalent and dangerous than what we experience here in Australia, and perhaps in Europe too. Now I'm not saying that unlimited free speech is the cause, in fact I'm pretty sure it isn't, because it's that country's own history and experiences that shapes their society. But I think it is disingenuous to to say the opposite, that unlimited speech has been much more effective in preventing bigotry and discrimination compared to countries that have anti-hate speech laws.
The government should never be in the position of determining which are ideas are acceptable and which are not. Never forget that liberal-minded people might not always be in control of government.
This to me is the crux of the problem with the argument for unlimited speech. There is this idea that of limiting certain speech, like hate speech, leads to a "slippery slope", where eventually government will have the final determination on all ideas and speech. It's the same invalid argument made by anti-gay campaigners, where if gay marriage is allowed, then the slippery slope will lead to the legalisation of all types of marriage (even those between an adult and a child, for example). The gun lobby makes the argument too when it comes to banning assault rifles. But there is no slippery slope because we have laws that clearly define the limits of what is allowed and isn't allowed. Some may find the limits arbitrary (for example, you can drink when you're 21, but not a day before - so why not make the limit 22, or 20?), but that is in essence what laws are for, to set out arbitrary limits of what is acceptable (so taking the previous example, there is no slippery slope that will eventually make drinking illegal for, say, anyone under 65).
So you can have very well defined limits to speech, like we have here in Australian and virtually all other democracies in the world, and it has not lead to the "worst case scenario" that you mention above. All freedoms have limits (it's why we have laws), and these limits are placed there for the benefit of society. The important question here is, does allowing the likes of Fox News, the KKK, the Westboro Baptist Church to spew their brand of hate do more harm to society than the benefit gained from preventing this very much theoretical "worst case" scenario? This is not a rhetorical question, but a genuine one, as while I believe the principle behind unlimited speech is sound, I'm not just quite sure if practically speaking, it works quite as well as it should on paper (due to the fact that it is easily exploited to offend, incite and divide).
Look, there are certainly many benefits to having no limits to free speech, and personally, I'm not at all against it. But I don't think it doesn't have (some major) disadvantages, and all I'm saying is that there are other ways that also work, and work well in other countries.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Hate speech has no place in a civilized society.
branford
(4,462 posts)would strongly disagree with you.
If you argument is that bigoted speech should be socially unacceptable, I would agree, but acknowledge it will never happen.
If you believe such speech should be criminalized or restricted by the government, be careful what you wish for. Those in power in the USA have not always been progressive. For instance, I doubt many here who might approve of criminalizing hate speech would feel as strongly if liberals were arrested and prosecuted for criticizing the Catholic Church, or challenging those who oppose same-sex marriage or abortion.
The price for truly free speech and the open exchange of ideas in a democracy is that some of the speech will be hateful and offensive. No agent of the government should be able to restrict what ideas can be discussed.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)We are talking about France. And French law. I'm not sure how the AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union is relevant to this conversation.
branford
(4,462 posts)Unless your argument is that the USA is not part of "civilized society," you appear to advocate criminal speech restrictions in this country as well as France.
My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you. Would you care to respond to whether you are advocating that the USA should similarly criminally restrict certain speech like France?
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Hate speech has no place in a civilized society. Neither do homophobia or racism. Just because they are legal doesn't mean they should be tolerated.
The French are enforcing THEIR laws. And good for them.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)The gunmen were of Algerian descent. A former French colony that they brutalized not too long ago. It makes sense that they would have been pissed at France.
So now they are going to send a carrier to bomb Iraq?
I wonder if the French will see the connection if they have another terrorist attack in 30 years, this time committed by Iraqis, or will they completely forget their history again?
I do think people should be arrested for making threats, if that is what they mean by hate speech, but would have to scrutinize these 54 cases before I could say I support it. I am always skeptical of reactionary policy.
