Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Do you support laws against Holocaust denial? [View all]
France, of course, does not have the First Amendment that we do.
Free exercise of religion is one big difference between the US and France which, in general, restricts public expressions of religion. For example, we've had lively discussions of the French ban on religious headwear in schools and often the point was raised that "France is different", which it is.
Another area of difference is that France, like many European countries, has a criminal law which provides up to a year in jail for questioning the occurrence of the Holocaust:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_laws
"those who have disputed the existence of one or more crimes against humanity such as they are defined by Article 6 of the statute of the international tribunal military annexed in the agreement of London of August 8, 1945 and which were a carried out either by the members of an organization declared criminal pursuant to Article 9 of the aforementioned statute, or by a person found guilty such crimes by a French or international jurisdiction shall be punished by one month to one year's imprisonment or a fine."
The U.S. approach to these things is the maxim, "the answer to bad speech is more speech" while many other countries have taken the position that the discussion on certain topics is over and done.
I've seen the sentiment expressed here that one is either for free expression of all kinds or one is opposed to it.
Do restrictions against certain forms of speech and, I must say, a particularly idiotic and pernicious type of speech, pose a problem, or is it possible to define a specific topic to be off limits without falling into a slippery slope of creeping restrictions on speech.
Tangentially one thing I have noticed is that European lawyers consider our near absolutism on the topic of free speech to be a peculiar American fetish. My work is principally in internet trademark issues, and a recurring problem in international arbitrations in the subject are domain names of the form (trademark)sucks.com. European arbitrators nearly unanimously find that criticism of companies by use of such domain names is an unlawful use of the trademark, while US arbitrators find such domain names permissible on free speech grounds. The arguments in these cases invariably devolve into the Europeans essentially dismissing the U.S. position as some kind of paranoid obsession.
But before you go calling me a Nazi, I just want to point out that applying our approach to free speech issues to a European context is not always met with the enthusiastic agreement of Europeans.
As an example, I had to go to a US court in order to reverse this decision:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0387.html
The dissent, written by the U.S. arbitrator on the panel, aptly states my continued irritation at the difference between Americans and Europeans on the entire subject.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
104 replies, 5808 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (14)
ReplyReply to this post
104 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Agree. Although I will admit to more than a little satisfaction when other countries prosecute
stevenleser
Jan 2015
#72
This is a case where I think we're right. But we're also essentially alone in the world
Recursion
Jan 2015
#13
I find it strange that so many DU'ers easily dismiss hate crimes when it's speech.
KittyWampus
Jan 2015
#15
I imagine that some Christians would be deeply offended by your "Zombie Jesus" thread.
Nye Bevan
Jan 2015
#17
No, I don't think there's any COUNTRY that would have me prosecuted for Zombie Jesus.
KittyWampus
Jan 2015
#18
I like the juxtaposition between Jesus rising from the dead and zombies rising from the dead.
KittyWampus
Jan 2015
#35
Wow, aren't you clever now posting the graphic! I will repost the definition of hate speech
KittyWampus
Jan 2015
#23
You can speculate as to whether or not you would be convicted of blasphemy in Ireland.
Nye Bevan
Jan 2015
#30
indeed, several witnesses are not a "substantial number". AFAIK, Irish Blasphemy Law
KittyWampus
Jan 2015
#32
No, I am mainly arguing for laws regarding hate speech. Just because one country got it wrong
KittyWampus
Jan 2015
#78
Bullying, even if done "only" with words, is not protected free speech in the US.
Silent3
Jan 2015
#29
Great question. I think I do and here is why: free speech under capitalism
KingCharlemagne
Jan 2015
#24
Hmm, that's a tough one. It is, after all, a primary source for historians
KingCharlemagne
Jan 2015
#39
And what about when the man from the government decides that an opinion of yours is not "decent"?
Nye Bevan
Jan 2015
#41
Another great question and one for which I have no easy answer. Let me pose a couple questions
KingCharlemagne
Jan 2015
#47
You would have the police knock on the doors and arrest those who question global warming?
Nye Bevan
Jan 2015
#38
Since there are hate groups and websites that already push that bullshit, it is a moot issue.
still_one
Jan 2015
#42
Tell me then about the jail time served by staff of this magazine. I believe they were within the
Bluenorthwest
Jan 2015
#76
No I don't. I literally can't think of any free speech that I need to be protected from.
dissentient
Jan 2015
#51
But if they continue, and perhaps resist being locked up, do you just go away, or bring force?
jtuck004
Jan 2015
#59
And yet the French law did not lock up Charlie, terrorists murdered them.
Bluenorthwest
Jan 2015
#77
It's not technically illegal here, but it could fall foul of racial vilification laws...
Violet_Crumble
Jan 2015
#60
Nope. We allow some citizens to think Ben Carson is presidential material, don't we?
Paladin
Jan 2015
#95
It would be unconstitutional and also prevent us from identifying many of these idiots!
davidsilver
Jan 2015
#103