That’s not how I remember it. Wasn’t it a result of a combination of the French electoral system and the splitting of the right wing vote allowing Le Pen to finish just ahead and thereby become entitled to participate in the run-off?
And wasn’t there a massive landslide in the actual election resulting in a Chirac victory? And wasn’t this preceeded by huge demonstrations against Le Pen?
checks wikipedia… yes Chirac wins with 82% of the vote - pretty major for a Presidential election in a western democracy. So he never had a “real shot” at becoming President. And he only got as many votes as he did because everyone hated Chirac (thought of as a crook).
In the next election - the 2007 Presidential election - he finished fourth which sounds good until you look at the parties he finished ahead of (in order):
the Revolutionary Communist League
the Movement For France (anti-islam, euro-sceptic)
the French Communist Party
the Greens
the Workers Struggle
Jose Bove (an anti-globalisation candidate)
the Hunting, Fishing, Nature, Tradition candidate
the Workers Party
French politics, sheesh. Mind you, I wouldn’t want it any other way.
Actually, I haven’t. I merely stated that this particular speech cannot be made without committing a crime, but that is not equivalent to saying the speech itself is a crime.
Nitpick. Yes, showing a security cam video of a murder taking place is protected. That might have to do with the fact that the guys didn’t install the camera for the purpose of shooting a murder. Kiddie porn is a crime committed for the express purpose of showing it.
I believe you have the right to bear arms, not swing them. rimshot
I contend that while actions can harm, speech cannot. If (as in the above example) my boss fires me over slander, it is my boss firing me I have an issue with, not the slander itself.
See above.
Provide an example of secret information the lawful knowledge of which wouldn’t involve a written, oral or implicit contract not to spread it.
And I contend that it’s not. If someone tells me to “kill the cops ! kill the cops !”, I’m still the one who thought it was a good idea and threw a molotov cocktail. No one put a gun to my head (and if they did, that not speech, is it ? ;))
Repeat after me : speech can’t hurt me, or society. Only actions can. Speech is not an action.
I was asking you specifically about your views of child pornography, since you seem so certain about that, despite the link in the OP that indicates laws are very different in Japan from the US for instance, and the complex relationship of pornography and free speech issues in the US and probably elsewhere. I just wonder where you come about your certainty in discussing such legal matters, because I noticed not a single citation to any legal analysis of the issue.
Hindsight is 20/20, but at the time it wasn’t all that clear cut :). There wouldn’t have *been *demonstrations (and calls to outlaw the party alltogether) if nobody thought there was a chance, however slight. Anyway, I’d be happy to discuss it somewhere else if you will, but let’s not hijack the thread, shall we ?
Yes. I think if you research the available defenses to slander and libel claims for various types of parties in various places in the world, you might find that they are not what you think they are.
So, yeah, I do need citations.
But it was that clear cut - I remember it very clearly (I’ve got a degree in French politics so I’m always interested in their elections). There was no chance Le Pen was going to win. Even at the time, we all knew that.
9/11 Conspiracy theories really really bother me for some reason. I can’t really explain why - it’s not like I’m a Republican or anything. I’ve spent a lot of time reading about the subject and I’m convinced that the CTs aren’t innocent or misguided or mistaken - they’re deliberate lies. I guess I’m afraid of the slippery slope of using every major event to promote your ideology, no matter how much you have to lie to do so. And IME, at the heart of almost every conspiracy and conspiracist is radicalism and/or racism.
That being said, I’m afraid of the slippery slope of censoring them too. Free speech means free speech and sometimes that sucks ass.
Sure. Say you contracted HIV and you want to keep it a secret. Not for any nefarious purposes, you just don’t want anyone to know. But your doctor thinks differently and decides to tell your friends, family co-workers etc.
Oh, OK. Thank you.
I would say the doctor/patient confidentiality contract would be the actionable item in this specific case, but I can also now see a more common scenario : gossip. Well, is that against the law ? Should it be ?
Your idea in the first paragraph doesn’t really resolve anything; it’s just two competing claims. If libel and slander are legal and there is no recourse, then my newspaper could counter every story your newspaper prints with more made-up garbage. Since we are both free to lie without fear of penalty, we are free to invent our own “evidence” and (since, presumably, the public realizes this) I fail to see how one source would be considered much more reliable than another.
As for the second paragraph, perhaps your fiancée/boss/landlord trusts you, but just can’t handle the media/legal/social pressure.
Even if you eventually exonerate yourself with some self-made media blitz, you have expended a great deal of time, effort, and money that you will never be compensated for. A well-funded slander campaign could distract or bankrupt a political opponent or business competitor- such things do happen in areas of the world where libel/slander laws are weak or not enforced.
And yes, these accusations can cause real financial hardships to the victim. Unnecessary legal fees, time taken off from work, and added personal security measures are some of the real costs that might be incurred by a libeled individual.
Suing the newspaper won’t get your house, job, or girlfriend back (maybe). But the threat that you might sue would prevent the newspaper from ever printing slander about you in the first place, preventing the problem entirely. Or, they could be legally obligated to print a retraction/correction.
Does sending a violent criminal to prison help the victim in any way? Unlikely, but the threat of being sent to prison can be a deterrent, and prevent the potential victim from being hurt in the first place. Libel and slander laws work the same way. If you can’t imagine what use they would be, it’s because they are working.
Your original post seems to suggest that it is perfectly legitimate for a newspaper (or TV station, etc.) to deliberately and maliciously lie to sell papers (or airtime) or to damage those they perceive as enemies/competitors- and that they have no obligation to publish corrections even if proven wrong (although without court involvement, I’m not sure how a slander/libel victim could legally ‘prove’ anything). Is this really what you’re advocating?
Seriously, you go and argue that all anyone anywhere in the world needs to know about libel and slander is in an online general dictionary, and that it is definitely the same everywhere. It is not like, say a “law dictionary” might have more nuance, or that differences in such cases are not noted regularly in the news when such cases involve celebrities for example. No, none of that ever happens.
It sounds boring. The developers probably started the controversy themselves for some much-needed publicity. I wouldn’t be surprised if Equality Now (whoever the fuck that is) is on their payroll.
Well, you didn’t mention a state, but you did mention Disney, so I’ll take that to mean Florida.
I wouldn’t argue that you can learn everything you need about the law from a dictionary, but as a law student who wrote his first year memo about libel, I can tell you that falsity is always a requirement for a defamation claim. Every legal definition of libel from every U.S. jurisdiction will say so. Arguing otherwise is just silly.
