Here’s What People are Saying About Hate Speech


UPDATE: Just Marveilleux has joined us in the comments.  

National Review has a timely article just posted today.

From a French blogger by the pseudonym  Just Merveilleux.

Hate Speech vs. Free Speech

After a discussion this week with an American blogger regarding free speech, I decided to do a little research. Apparently the US is the only developed nation which does not have laws protecting its citizens or groups of citizens from hate speech. To me, it’s a mystifying notion.

If you want to leave a comment on the internet on any French site, you get a little warning. Here’s Yahoo’s:

warning

Meaning: Any comment contrary to current regulations (notably all comments of racist, anti semitic or defamatory character) may lead to your account being terminated.

When appropriate, certain comments you post may also result in judicial prosecution.

The American model of absolute free speech is incredibly outdated- not to mention irresponsible. A civilized society is one in which our freedoms are balanced with those of our fellow citizens. To be allowed to say anything, no matter its veracity, is incredibly dangerous and only actually benefits people who want to defame, and who know they’re slandering.  



Shocking that America  “is the only developed nation which does not have laws protecting its citizens or groups of citizens from hate speech.”  

More interesting than the article, was the collection of comments:

FREE.png

I sometimes can’t see the advantage in arguing certain things with some folks.  The Europeans will welcome Shariah under the guise of allowing all people to live according to their culture.  “Hate speech” will be banned until it is ultimately used to stifle all speech.

Americans and Canadians might have a chance in this thing.  I still hate being an advocate for “hate speech” but I do not want to side with those gentle fascists who think they want others to choose what is “responsible speech.”

Over my dead keyboard.

This entry was posted in Free Speech, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

110 Responses to Here’s What People are Saying About Hate Speech

  1. The idea of “welcoming sharia” is rather ridiculous and has absolutely no bearing on laws prohibiting hate speech. Prohibiting speech that incites discrimination and violence isn’t prohibiting criticism. We can criticize freely. We just can’t generalize or (falsely) ascribe characteristic to whole groups of people.

    Like

    • gmhowell says:

      We discriminate every day. Even Europeans and American liberals discriminate every day. Why is it wrong to speak of it?

      Like

    • onwyrdsdream says:

      If you say all of the set X are in group Y, that is an implies relationship. X ➡Y doesn’t mean Y➡X, but it doesn’t change the truth of the original assertion. An assertion that is true isn’t hate, it is mere fact. Perhaps the person making it does hate, but if it is true, the information never the less has social value. Statements with social value should never be baned, and yet some are. It is illogical to assert that because Y is not equal to X, that you can’t say X implies Y, if that statement is true. Likewise pointing out most of the members of set A are members of set B is mere fact, as long as it is verifiable.

      When Germany invaded France, a Frenchman pointing it out might have incited his fellow Frenchman to violence and discrimination against the Germans. Or when the Germans sent their brownshirts across various borders in the mid 30s inciting rebellion in local german speaking communities, pointing out the Germans who’d come where doing so might have incited violence and discrimination, against people who were there to incite violence and discrimiation. Is pointing out one of the political goals of La Racia is pretty much the same thing racist? That Islam is not merely a religion but also a political system? A functional society not only has the right to point out truths that certain groups might find unhappy, but the duty to protect itself against those threats to its very ability to endure.

      Finially, Madison noted that both the people and the government are made of imperfect humans. A government made of imperfect men is not fit to possess the power to limit what people can say, as it is a power too easily turned to its own ends. It can not be better demonstrated than by where it actually supresses speech, campaign finance laws. Just because you have more money than me doesn’t mean your message should be able to reach more people is flat idiotic.

      Like

      • Your whole first paragraph is basically what I’ve been saying. And is in line with the final decisions of the courts I’ve mentioned.
        The second part, however, I disagree with. Government limits driving, drinking, sexual activity, and all range of things- limiting *defamatory* speech hasn’t made any developed country tumble into tyranny.

        Like

      • onwyrdsdream says:

        It isn’t only tyranny, speech regulation can also cause a country to tumble into anarchy. Like, say, if a bunch of people went on a campaign of sexual assault but the government took efforts to keep people or media from pointing out the common features of the assailants, to the point they tried to supress news of it at all. Emboldened, they continue and escalate. If reasonable laws which protect my liberty and property are not enforced, do I care if the people who would harm me and mine are from the government or an unruly mob? At best I could petition for a veto from the party’s opposite member.

        Likewise, telling people not to express their vitriol doesn’t make those grievances go away. They’ll still be expressed, just rather than a small fire, you’ll have a large one. Much like preventing all forest fires ended up with fewer but much larger ones.

        Going though history, are there many developed countries that backslid into tyranny (or anarchy) that didn’t start with strict regulation on speech, association, and property ownership? Be it the chaos of revolutionary France or the tyranny of Stalin’s soviet union, the time before they became terrible is similar. A modern example is Venezuela, where media that ran counter to the government ideology was swiftly crushed.

        I do not think the government can be trusted to determine what hate speech is, and it certainly can’t be trusted to confine itself to that. You are free to think otherwise, and say otherwise. For now. Other western governments have supressed valid complaints of their populations because the complaints were labeled hate speech. That allows those governments to implement policies without debate because the counter point is labeled hate speech. Can a government be representitve when you aren’t allowed to express to them your complaints?

        Liked by 2 people

  2. Watch how that line moves, Pink. One day it’s a word that is forbidden. Tomorrow it’s an idea. Soon, there are approved thoughts and illegal ones. I’d rather be offended sometimes, and have freedom

    Liked by 2 people

    • The thing is, no word is forbidden! It’s simply a matter of framing. For example, I can say I think Islam is a ridiculous religion- which is what I think of all religions. I can say all recent major terrorist attacks were perpetrated by Muslims. I can criticize freely. What I can’t do is falsely ascribe characteristics to whole groups of people.
      I can’t say All Muslims are _____. Any word filling that blank other than the word Muslim would be misleading. Simply because religion isn’t a determining factor in any other characteristic. I challenge you to come up with a single statement that you think the law prohibits but is verifiably true 😀

      Like

      • Gus Bailey says:

        Sorry, should have nested this:

        …no word is forbidden! It’s simply a matter of framing.

        There is a flaw inherent in that statement. Shall I point it out?

        Like

      • Gus Bailey says:

        Oh, and as a direct answer to your question.

        “Islam via the Koran and as interpreted by an enormous population, promotes violence.”

        For a definition of “enormous” I’ll point you to Dearborn, MI, USA.

        Like

      • That’s a perfectly acceptable statement that could not be prosecuted under the hate speech law.

        Like

      • Gus Bailey says:

        The flaw: Framing is subjective. Who exactly gets to determine what context or combination of words is unacceptable?

        What happens when you, and your reasonable opinions are not included in that group?

        Like

      • All the laws I’ve read on this are really quite clear. So clear that there hasn’t yet been a single “controversial” prosecution that I could find after a whole lot of research.
        The reason is they piggy-back on defamation law. In that sense the truth is a valid defence. If you can prove your statement, you’re clear. No subjectivity in that.

        Like

      • Gus Bailey says:

        I think that’s the American difference; the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. An American citizen won’t have to prove the statement is true; the government would have to prove that it was false.
        I’ll stick with a system that isn’t empowered to arbitrarily determine that my opinion is “wrong-speak”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • That’s not really how the system works. The presumption of innocence exists in Europe as well. In the specific case of defamation claims, I’m stating that a valid legal defence (both in Europe and in America, and most developed countries) is truth. If you can show your statement is true, they don’t have a case against you.

        Like

      • Gus Bailey says:

        Er. Nope. Under American law, the offended party must show that the offensive statement is false.
        Yer gonna wanna trust me on that one. I know of a guy that got called a pedophile. It’s a pretty nasty insult. He took the other fellow to court. I’m pretty sure it ended up with a directed verdict in favor of the fellow who called the first dude a pedophile. Seems the first guy couldn’t prove he wasn’t.
        Now, in fairness; the second fellow gave a pretty good accounting for why he considered (Oh let’s call the first dude Brett) Brett a pedophile, but the case hinged on Brett not being able to prove that (let’s call the second fellow Aaron) Aaron was lying when he called Brett a pedophile.

        Liked by 1 person

      • That’s a case of slander between two parties. It’s slightly different.

        Like

      • Gus Bailey says:

        Well, this is getting hair-splitting; just when does the government start protecting me from hate speech? Who determines this?

        Like

      • The law determines it and bases it on those characteristics I mentioned in my last comment.

        Like

      • Gus Bailey says:

        Ah, the Law. Hmm. Not an answer. Furthermore, I’m still curious as to how you’ll feel when the Law decides to disagree with you?

        Like

      • If I’m breaking the law, I’ll have to accept it. That’s how laws work.

        Like

      • Gus Bailey says:

        This is precisely America’s point. See, here you have the right to be offended. You have the right to be known as a jerk. You don’t have the right to suppress other peoples speech, no matter how stupid, through the courts.

        Like

      • Just for fun, have a look at these high profile cases and their results. Tell me which decisions you think were wrong:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France#Selected_cases

        Like

      • Gus Bailey says:

        Looks like the Law is not performing as advertised. I’m seeing considerable vacillation. It appears that the Law is actually the whim of a judge or three.
        None of these cases show any damage or Hatred that resulted from the speech/or not as the coin may have fallen.
        I don’t understand the argument.

        Like

      • Did you actually read any of it? With whom did the law (the legal system) side in the end? Where’s the vacillation? The point is the legal system worked.

        Like

      • Gus Bailey says:

        Yes, I did. There was not a lot of consistency; which means the judges were the ones deciding, not the Law.
        You’re deluding yourself that a law that allows people to decide who gets to say what is a crime and what is okay.
        Still waiting for a definition of “Hate” speech versus rude speech.

        Like

      • gmhowell says:

        Every one of those where the court sided with the complainant is wrong. The correct response to each of them would have been to argue against the person making ‘hate speech’. Don’t believe in the Holocaust? Here is why you are wrong. Think Europe is being invaded by Muslims? Here is why you are wrong. Think Jews control the EU? Here is why you are wrong.

        I’m thinking that maybe it’s just Europeans and children who can’t tolerate opinions and ideas that do not agree with their own.

        On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Dave Alexander & Company with Ukuleledave and David Edgren — This is the original Artisan Craft Blog wrote:

        > The Pink Agendist, née Mr. Merveilleux commented: “Just for fun, have a > look at these high profile cases and their results. Tell me which decisions > you think were wrong: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France#Selected_cases” >

        Liked by 2 people

      • Interesting. So your point is we shouldn’t have a legal system where people can make complaints if they feel their rights as citizens are being infringed upon? Are you under the impression that’s the case in America?

        Like

      • gmhowell says:

        That’s not what I said at all. Go back and reread it.

        You have ginned up a ‘right’ that doesn’t in any moral way exist: the right not to have hurt feelings.

        You have a right to sue over various lies. You don’t get to sue over opinions.

        Liked by 1 person

      • That’s the case in France: You have a right to sue over various lies. You don’t get to sue over opinions.
        Simple as that.
        What you’re defending is the right to lie.

        Like

      • Gus Bailey says:

        Could not, or Would not? Or Should not?

        Like

      • gmhowell says:

        Sure you can. Who will jail you for saying ‘all whites are racist’?

        Like

      • I think you’re a bit confused.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Gus Bailey says:

        Sorry, I’m thinking you’re thinking Mr. Howell is confused?

        Would it be a crime to say that “All whites are racist.”?
        Would the converse of saying that “Whites can’t be the victims of racism.”, be provably true?

        Like

      • There are a number of issues with the statement. First, it wouldn’t classify as hate speech. It doesn’t rise to that level. Neither would saying all Asians are good at maths, or all Asians have tiny penises.

        Like

      • Gus Bailey says:

        Hmm. Okay, so what is hate speech, and what is rude speech? Because I’ve read a case or two where some nice British folks were hauled into dock for their opinions, specifically about Mohammedans.

        Like

      • Could you specify which cases? I’ve been trying to find an exception to what I’ve proposed and still haven’t been able to find one.
        In France it’s organized as: France prohibits by its penal code and by its press laws public and private communication which is defamatory or insulting, or which incites discrimination, hatred, or violence against a person or a group of persons on account of place of origin, ethnicity or lack thereof, nationality, race, specific religion, sex, sexual orientation, or handicap. The law prohibits declarations that justify or deny crimes against humanity, for example, the Holocaust.

        Like

      • Gus Bailey says:

        Sorry, I can only find German cases at the moment, specifically the one where the poet was fined for insulting Ergodan, and another where several folks were busted for posting “anti-migrant” views online.

        Like

      • And now they can appeal those cases to the high court. There is no record of genuine freedom of speech (meaning verifiable fact as opposed to defamation) not being upheld in the courts. Saying the contrary is simply false.

        Like

      • Gus Bailey says:

        Ah, but who has suffered? Who has thought twice about echoing such a sentiment? Even if the speaker is exonerated, is the truth not damaged?

        Like

      • Gus Bailey says:

        Pink says: “…people can make complaints if they feel their rights as citizens are being infringed…
        The fundamental supposition is that people have a Right to not be hated. To be fair, it seems that he’s trying to say that people have a right to not be hated for the cultural group they happen to belong to.
        Trick is, apparently in France, just hating someone is a crime. You don’t have to harass them, or actually discriminate against them; just say in broad and sweeping terms that they are bad people as a group.

        Like

      • Then you obviously didn’t read where the courts sided in each and every case highlighted.

        Like

      • Gus Bailey says:

        Wait. No offense, but that didn’t translate well.
        Please explain the nuance between 2005 Liberation compared to 2007 Lyon Capitale.

        Like

      • Interesting. Are you suggesting Christians should have special protections?

        Like

      • Gus Bailey says:

        Define Hate.
        You asked for cases. I gave you cases. You have refused to defend your fundamental argument, resorting instead to minutiae and ad hominem.
        You can’t prove that the judges are not the once making the decisions. I have pointed to two cases. You have thus far declined to answer.
        Redirection is a failed argument.

        Like

      • The German cases aren’t done. They can be appealed. Just as Oprah Winfrey did in her food libel case and as the Westboro Baptist Church did in their case. I can’t give an opinion where we don’t know the final result.
        My guess is the German poet will win his case in the end as all precedent is on his side.

        Like

      • Gus Bailey says:

        2005 Liberation compared to 2007 Lyon Capitale.

        Like

      • So you see no difference between promoting condoms and saying Jews (as a people) are a *fraud*?

        Like

      • Gus Bailey says:

        Minutia.
        Fundamentals?

        Like

      • Gus Bailey says:

        As I noted previously, ad hominae are the mark of a failed argument.
        Which is truer: my right to speech or my right to prevent the speech of others?

        Like

      • Gus Bailey says:

        And when you’re ready to drop the Ad Hominems; I’d appreciate an explanation of why speech and by extension though is subject to any law at all?
        You keep arguing the French specifics. You’re French, that’s fine. But you started by being amazed that the USA doesn’t restrict the thoughts of it’s citizens. You need to defend the fundamental concept or move on.

        Like

      • Thought isn’t prohibited in France. Can you point to any law that restricts thought? That’s simply false. What is prohibited is slander, especially that based on personal identity.

        Like

      • gmhowell says:

        I’ve moved on. Just another European looking down his nose at ignorant Anericans; nothing to see here.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Gus Bailey says:

        yup.

        Like

      • Gus Bailey says:

        One last thing, since you can’t seem to be able to pin down what is “hate” for us; would a prominent member of political society be in violation of these laws if he/she were to take to a very public forum and declare that “These people are like terrorists, they are going to be the end of our country.“? If not, how would it differ from the Bardot case?

        Like

      • Sorry, Gus- but my interest in this discussion diminished dramatically when you talked about the presumption of innocence in America as if that were an American concept that didn’t exist in Europe. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat was part of the Justinian code in the 6th century. The modern version was reintroduced into the legal world by Garrow- in England not in America, and substituting the Germanic model which had been adopted after the fall of the Roman Empire which was basically guilty until proven innocent.

        Without a more thorough grasp of history, facts, case law and the difference between an accusation and a conditional or circumstantial statement, there’s no way I can put this that you’d understand.
        The Bardot case is as straightforward as we can get. France has between 5 and 6 million muslims. That’s around 6.5 million out of 65 million. Only 2.1 million of them declare themselves Muslim. Only 36% of them declare themselves observant believers. And only 20% actually attend mosque. That means that in a population of 65 million we have 1.3 million Muslims interested enough in Islam to attend mosque and who are getting no special legal privileges of any kind. Bardot’s statements are then a fraud. She is using falsehoods to incite hatred. It’s not that hard to understand.

        Like

      • Pablo says:

        “It is Muslims that keep exploding amidst our people.”

        Like

      • And it used to be Catholics from Northern Ireland. And it used to be the Basques in Spain and France. But because they looked like us we didn’t consider labeling the entire category of people they belonged to as terrorists.

        Like

  3. Gus Bailey says:

    …no word is forbidden! It’s simply a matter of framing.

    There is a flaw inherent in that statement. Shall I point it out?

    Like

  4. Charles Hudson says:

    One question for Mr. Merveilleux:

    In your opinion, do the rights of an individual supersede the will of the majority?

    Like

    • Gus Bailey says:

      Don’t bother. It’s a one sided discussion. You simply have to trust Msr. Pink. He apparently knows what’s best. I doubt there’s any Chauvanism (see Nicolas) involved.

      Like

  5. Boston Bob says:

    Is there a difference between saying in a public forum, “All Christians are killers!” Vs. saying in the same forum “All Muslims are killers!”

    If not, please explain.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. monkeytoe says:

    Too silly. Claiming the “law is clear” is absurd. You can’t “disparage” an “entire people or race”, but who gets to determine what is disparaging?

    And furthermore, why not? Why can’t I say “I believe all muslims are violent”? You are now prosecuting me for my beliefs? Or for stating my beliefs.

    that you can’t see the inherent fascism in such a stance, shows how far gone you are toward totalitarianism. Once you let the gov’t decide what speech is “acceptable”, don’t be surprised when it determines things you say are “unacceptable”.

    the french are all idiots. they couldn’t wait to sign on with Hitler and collaborate with killing Jews, and now they want to sign on with Muslims and force everyone to “respect islam. It’s in the french character to surrender and collaborate. It is a nation of cowards, toadies, and fascists. that we allowed them their freedom after WWII and never made the French people pay for their Nazi collaboration has led them to believe themselves good people, when nothing could be further from the truth, as evidenced by their racing back toward fascism.

    Like

  7. monkeytoe says:

    “The law prohibits declarations that justify or deny crimes against humanity, for example, the Holocaust.”

    And yet, the French people never truly paid for their collaboration with the holocaust. they loved Hitler and the Nazis when they took over, and are now looking to reinstate fascism – which is all that gov’t censorship of speech will lead to. Because once the gov’t can criminalize certain types of speech, it will quickly turn to criminalizing statements critical of gov’t – such as those by opposition parties. That you are too dumb to understand that is obvious.

    Like

  8. monkeytoe says:

    In response to the request for a case that got it wrong:

    “In 2008, legendary French actress Brigitte Bardot was convicted for the fifth time for inciting hatred. The Movement Against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples (MRAP) filed the charge against Bardot because, in a letter to the government about the Muslim festival of Eid-al-Kabir, she complained about “this population that leads us around by the nose, [and] which destroys our country.””

    How do you prove that the quoted statement by Bardot is “untrue”? You can’t prove it either way. I believe it is true. Why can’t I – or Bardot – say it? Because it hurts someone’s feelings?

    If I say “the vast majority of muslims support terrorism” – does that break the law? How? How can you prove it isn’t true? Are you going to take a poll? What if I say “the vast majority of muslims SECRETLY support terrorism”? What now? Again, there is no way for you to disprove this statement.

    What if I say “muslim culture leads to violence and hatred”? I’m not impugning any individual muslim. I’m pointing out a problem stemming from a culture. Is this “hate speech” that can be prosecuted? Why? How do you disprove the truth of the statement?

    If you can’t see the absurdity of the law, you are a fool.

    the issue isn’t whether the courts have managed to get some cases right in the past (and I’ll point out that the high-profile cases are the tip of the iceberg – the problem is the people without the means to fight the gov’t – in those cases the process is the punishment. If they fight, they end up paupers. So instead they are cowed into silence, which is the gov’ts [and your] intention). Sure, when someone has the means to truly fight and the press is paying close attention, the courts may get it. but that only happens in a minuscule minority of cases. So, in most cases, the gov’t is using its full power to silence someone without the means to fight back.

    and you and your ilk not only applaud, but encourage it. It is disgusting.

    Like

    • I can prove Ms. Bardot’s claims are false with evidence. Muslims have no special rights in French law. On the contrary. France is a secular state which, in fact, prohibits religious symbols. There’s a total prohibition on the niqab. There’s also a prohibition of veils in public schools, public buildings and all government offices. And a second tier prohibition of veils for mothers picking up their children at public schools.
      For Bardot’s claim to be deemed true she would have to simply provide evidence Muslims actually do have some advantage in French society.

      Like

      • Gus Bailey says:

        And yet, they were protected from her speech when Christians were not? How is that not special treatment?

        Like

      • Adriane says:

        Easy peasy. Are there no-go zones with majority populations of German immigrants? Are there no-go zones with majority populations of mimes? Are there no-go zones of Zoroastrianist, Comicon attendees, software engineers, fat women who sing bass, Thai ladyboys, Italian chefs who hate pasta, or any other combination of race, nationality, religion, profession, sex, hobby, Vietnam Veteran status, or any other group identity adjective you’d like to add?

        There are however, no-go zones in all major European cities that due to the Islamic legitimization of violence and humiliation directed against the kafir, enjoy freedom from laws that would be applied if the inhabitants were not Muslim: bigamy, rape, assault, theft, and murder, for example.

        The statement “Muslims have no special rights in French law.” is equally true and meaningless when there is no will of the government to prosecute Muslims who break French Law.

        The statement “There’s also a prohibition of veils in public schools” is equally true and meaningless when the majority of Muslims assaulting teachers for insisting of French customs by students, such as respecting women who work outside the home – i.e. the teachers – are not young girls in veils, but young men known to be Muslims by their names, first language, and country of origin, none of which can not be prevented by French law because everyone has a name, a first language, and a country of origin (or family origin).

        It is equally true that not all Germans were Nazis, back in the day, but we went to war with them anyway because enough of them were Nazi that the Nazi political platform and the suffering it entailed was being writ large upon those who did not desire it. While not all Muslims may desire an overthrow of French Law, enough do and have already supersede it with various forms of Sharia in the no-go zones. How can Brigit Bardot’s opinion not be protected speech when it is correct?

        Like

      • That’s a non starter. No such thing as no go zones at all. Here’s Fox apologizing for the MYTH of no-go-zones in France that they invented:

        And furthermore, the rest of your comment is imbecilic. It has no basis in fact whatsoever. You obviously weren’t capable of understanding the numbers I posted previously. There are less than 1.3 million Muslims in France in a population of 65 million who even go to mosque. And of the ones who do they’re certainly not all 100% extremists. So tell me, you brilliant statistician and anthropologist whose never set foot in France, where exactly are these Sharia no-go zones?

        Like

      • samk says:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_area

        “An early usage of the term regarding Europe was in a 2002 opinion piece by David Ignatius in The New York Times, where he wrote about France, “Arab gangs regularly vandalize synagogues here, the North African suburbs have become no-go zones at night, and the French continue to shrug their shoulders.”[21] La Courneuve and other districts in Paris were described by police as no-go zones.[22]”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_area#cite_note-22

        Fox invented the term? LOL.

        Like

      • You’re using the fallacy of hasty generalization.
        “This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form:

        Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.
        Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.”

        Fox applied the term wrongly and falsely. The same sort of fraud you’re trying to perpetrate right now by equating a ZUS with a *no go zone* where the police doesn’t enter. That is utterly false. And to insist on it is disingenuous. You’re promoting misinformation.

        Like

      • samk says:

        Right. Fox invented the idea of ‘no-go-zones’.

        Like

      • Are you saying their apology is a fake?

        Like

      • samk says:

        I’m saying that the New York Times, the Associated Press, and ABC were all commenting on no-go zones in France long before the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

        Like

      • samk says:

        Probably less fraud and more appeasement.

        Like

      • Perhaps- if you don’t understand the law.

        Like

      • samk says:

        To be frank, I don’t care about the intricacies of French law and how it affects who apologizes for what. I’m not French and I don’t go around accusing people of doing things they haven’t done.

        You stated that Fox News “invented” no-go zones. I pointed out that, in fact, they did not.

        Like

      • False again. No go-zones as they described them do not exist. What exist are poorer areas, where like in every other country, levels of crime are higher. By pretending the two things are the same as Fox did and you’re doing now, you’re promoting a falsehood and misleading whomever reads your comments.

        Like

      • Monkeytoe says:

        You can prove Ms. Bardot false when she says ” “this population that leads us around by the nose, [and] which destroys our country.””

        Really? Please, do so. too stupid.

        I love that you have no understanding of the difference between opinion and fact. It just demonstrates your idiocy further. You truly are a fascist. After you get the gov’t to criminalize opinion, what next – are you going to go after the jews like your fellow citizens did last time?

        Like

      • You do realize you weren’t sufficiently educated to know how to use grammar *in the language* you were born to, right?
        Your opinions should be limited to things you actually understand- like perhaps how to open a beer bottle or the care of false teeth.

        Like

  9. monkeytoe says:

    “And now they can appeal those cases to the high court. There is no record of genuine freedom of speech (meaning verifiable fact as opposed to defamation) not being upheld in the courts. Saying the contrary is simply false.”

    that’s the height of idiocy. Opinion is not defamation. Your fascist laws criminalize opinion. If I say “I think all muslims are violent and support terrorism” – that can be prosecuted. It is prosecuting me for an opinion. And, as I point out elsewhere, even if I put it forth as “fact”, it is unproveable either way. If I say “all muslims are evil” – how do you disprove that “fact”? Because you say so? Who defines “evil”?

    You believe you are making logical points, but all you are doing is circular reasoning. Your argument is “because the Court says such and such is a fact – it is a fact” and because the court says such and such is not a fact, it is not a fact. And because the court says this is defamatory, it is defamatory – as if there is truly an objective “rule” to prove or disprove such a thing.

    If I say “John Smith is a thief” and can’t prove it, that is defamation. If I say “all muslims are evil”, that is not defamation. Because it can’t be proven one way or the other. the idea that you can “defame” a group is ridiculous.

    the reality is that the speech that must be protected first is speech people don’t like. Because, once you say “OK, this speech over here is ok for Gov’t to censor” you are giving the gov’t the right to control speech. And once they have it, the gov’t will use it to control speech it does not like, which means criticism of it and support of its opponents.

    You like these laws because you know that at the end of the day, these laws will be used against your political opponents. Which makes you a fascist. Policing how people speak is a major step toward totalitarianism. Claiming it does not effect free speech is simply a lie. And, you know it is a lie.

    Like

    • Opinion and defamation are two different things, genius. Perhaps before commenting, try to learn a little bit about what the defamation laws are in your own country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#Defamation_law_in_modern_practice
      You obviously have no understanding of law or even how the legal system works in the country in which you were born; until you do, discussing this with you is like discussing grammar with someone who can neither read nor write.

      Like

      • Perry Mason says:

        Wow! Talk about being in your own Zones urbaines sensible.

        Perhaps Mr. Pink would like to search the term “defamation” for this website and see just what has been going on here for the past few years.

        Like

      • NY and LA would qualify as ZUS zones. No go? Seriously? Their airports would probably disagree.

        Like

      • Perry Mason says:

        Although quoting Wikipedia on US law is a nice touch.

        Like

      • I’m happy to quote specific laws if you prefer.

        Like

      • Perry Mason says:

        We’ve sat here for over 4 years and watched other legal experts quote defamation law with their newly-minted law degrees from Wiki U., threatening us to shut up. Many of us have also watched many of the commenters here and both Daves get sued for same, only to see those cases collapse like houses of cards. Although some suits continue today.

        People here know defamation law. They’ve lived it or are living it as we speak.

        Liked by 1 person

      • So you’re doubling down on the fake no-go-zones in France?

        Like

      • Monkeytoe says:

        You are defending “hate speech” laws, which would make opinion “hate speech”. Your defense of gov’t censorship (as all you fascists do – defend gov’t stomping on people’s rights) is that all that is being criminalized is “defamation”.

        If htat is true, then I can legally, in france, say in a publication “I believe all Muslims are evil terrorists who worship a demon and sexually abuse children”, correct?

        Yes or No. If you say that is “hate speech” – you are saying you want to criminalize opinion.

        It is you, not I, who have absolutely no understanding of what you are talking about. You really are not bright – like all french people – quick to collaborate with Nazi’s, quick to surrender, quick to support fascism. Why aren’t french people more ashamed of themselves? I’ve never understood how any french person can feel anything but shame. They are weak, silly, and dumb.

        Like

      • Goodness me. Sorry but that doesn’t merit an answer. French people are not that bright? Hilarious.

        Like

  10. samk says:

    Butthurt IS a tort?

    Like

  11. onwyrdsdream says:

    It isn’t advocating for hate speech, it’s advocating for a society where the government can not decide what you may not say, because there is no limiting principle on the principle on limitting speech; they could command your not speak at all because “everything yout say is offensive.” Government is not society. Perhaps hateful things should be ostracized by society, but that does not mean the government should have the ability to punish words.

    Consider how many want climate realist speech punished by law. Or the rape culture idiots claiming a noisy fart is a kind of rape. The willingness of idiots to feel slighted over mere opinion makes me very uncomfortable with any limit on speech. It isn’t even a slippery slopen argument, they actually advocate for this and do it elsewhere. We don’t care so much about protecting hurtful words as protecting words that are useful, that another party claims hurtful. You think when they have the tool of limiting speech, they won’t abuse it with wild abadon? Others who have it indeed have.

    Right now, Europe is banning people from crying wolf when there is an actual wolf. It’s too late when all the sheep are gone because no one could speak of the threat.

    Like

  12. LLC says:

    I shoulda made popcorn.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Dilligas says:

    I find the quoted portions of the post to be incredibly hateful and offensive: denigrating all Americans. It’s clear that he does not understand the “American model” of free speech; but yet he has determined that it is “outdated” and “irresponsible”. He claims that America is not a civilized society based, presumably, only on his misinformed / ignorant opinion, not any actual facts / law.

    In three short sentences, he called Americans outdated, irresponsible, uncivilized, and dangerous people who will be less than truthful just to defame and slander others .

    Thus, I am forced to conclude that his defamatory writing is “hate speech”. Will he be turning himself in to the authorities or who do we need to report him to the authorities?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dilligas says:

      “And my question is, how can any civilized society put the right to slander above another citizen’s right to dignity? ” — Merv

      Part of the problem is that the question being asked already presumes so much. (In a manner similar way to the old adage question: “do you still beat your spouse?”) The premise implies that slander is acceptable – despite the myriad of laws and case law to the contrary – and wants to compare it against a nebulous concept of ‘dignity’. Similar to comments above, who decides what is the appropriate level of dignity? After all, in some cultures dignity requires women to be completely covered; in others dignity requires that the women be allowed to wear as little as they dare.

      Liked by 2 people

  14. Pingback: Hate Speech is Already Being Used to Quiet Dissent in Europe | Dave Alexander & Company with Ukuleledave and David Edgren — This is the original Artisan Craft Blog

  15. Pingback: Free Speech vs Hate Speech Part II | Just Merveilleux

  16. Monkeytoe says:

    Would burning the koran in public be “hate speech” in France?

    Somehow, I bet it would. Yet, it doesn’t “defame” anyone. when was the last time a muslim in france was prosecuted for “hate speech”? that is the test.

    I love these people who think appeasing islam is going to make them safe. Too sad. Yes, outlawing someone’s opinion is definitely going to make the world freer, more peaceful, and better.

    I really wish we could ship all our lefties over to france. Let them enact all their leftist idiocy in its entirety and let us live in peace and prosperity with freedom and common sense.

    Like

  17. Monkeytoe says:

    Even further – let’s assume frenchie is right and the hate speech laws are aimed solely at defamatory speech. Why get the gov’t involved? Why criminalize it?

    If someone is getting defamed, they can sue. Let them. Why does it need to be criminalized?

    that pretty much proves frenchie’s entire argument false. If it was merely dealing with defamatory speech, the gov’t would not need to get involved, because whoever was being defamed could sue.

    And again, you can’t “defame” an entire religion. If that were true, how many atheists would be locked up in France for saying bad things about Christianity or Christians?

    they know it is b.s., that these laws are only used to appease certain groups – thereby giving them de facto special rights under French law (and proving Bardot correct).

    the idiocy and dishonesty of these people is, as always, troubling.

    Like

  18. ImNotHereAtAll says:

    And yet Australia, where we in the midst of yet another general election campaign, still rushes to embrace the idea of banning hate speech. We already have a law the prohibits speech that ‘inspires racial hatred’. We also still have antiquated Defamation laws where Truth is not a defence. The arguments defending criminalisation of free speech here are much the same.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Pingback: Walker Gets Help in His Free Speech Case | Dave Alexander & Company with David Edgren and Gus Bailey – The Artisan Craft Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s