Yes.
Absolutely, how is this even a question?
Every time a thread like this pops up, I am amazed that on a board which regularly pillories the latest “frivolous lawsuit” or “activist judge” or other supposed over-extension of the legal system there are people who would blithely cede to the government the power to decide what people can and can’t say. Amazed and horrified.
It’s not just “speech you happen not to like”. Insulting and threatening me isn’t a victimless crime. I’m victimized by it. Despite the US being very enamored of free speech, if I’m not mistaken, I could be sentenced in the US if I was making death threats to you, harassed you or publically accused you of imaginary crimes, for instance.
American people seem to perceive an important difference between threats, harassment, insults, defamation, etc… targeting a person as an individual and the same targeting a person as a member of a group. French people don’t perceive much of a difference here. You’re threatening to kill me in both cases. Why shouldn’t I worry?
Besides, there are other limits to free speech that are completely based on “speech I don’t like”. Am I free to display huge obscene pictures on a US building, for instance? Merely pictures with complete nudity?
The difference is, if taken to the extreme gays are a threat to humanity because if everyone turned gay overnight we would not reproduce and humanity would die out. (yes I know about artificial insemmenation, but that would just prolong the dieout).
The same can’t be said if everyone became black or jewish overnight.
OK, fine. Maybe I was mistaken about US law. So, if I’m your neighbor and put on my lawn a huge placard stating “** Otto ** is a cunt, a child rapist and ought to be burned alive” , there’s nothing you can do?
Not just Americans. I’m an Australian, born in Canada, who has spent considerable time living in both those countires. I like both of them, and think that they are, in many ways, superior to the United States. But i still don’t agree with hate speech laws.
Me neither, but we shouldn’t put people in jail based on whether we are “comfortable” with what they say.
I’m not. In fact, having these laws makes me far more uncomfortable than anything that someone might say.
I’m certainly not arguing that direct exhortations to violence and murder shoud be protected. In fact, those things aren’t protected here in the US either. But did this guy make such statements?
Also, i think we need to punish acts, not thoughts. If someone rails against gays or blacks or Jews, and then some other people go out and commit acts of violence against those groups, we should punish the actors, not the speaker.
And that’s what separates Canada from France. Much as the French like to trumpet their commitment to liberté, the fact is that they are not really very commited to free speech ideals. Their laws are more restrictive than Canada’s.
Libel is not protected speech. There’s a big difference between “I think Otto is an idiot,” and outright lying.
saying “Otto ought to be burned alive” is an incitement to kill a specific person. IANAL, but I’m pretty sure that’s not protected speech under the “immenent harm” idea. I’m not sure what you’d be charged with, but you’d be charged with something.
saying “Otto is a child rapist” opens you up to a libel charge.
Saying “Otto is a cunt” is your opinion and you’re welcome to it, as you should be. However if you put it on a big sign on your lawn, you may open yourself up to an obscenity charge, depending on local laws.
Well, “Otto is a cunt” would probably be considered a perfectly acceptable insult.
“Otto is a child rapist**,” however, is an actual allegation about his behavior, and would fall under laws relevant to slander and libel . And this would, i believe, require Otto to file civil charges, rather than the government filing criminal charges.
“Otto ought to be burned alive.” I’m not sure about how American law deals with this one, whether it constitutes a specific enough statement to be considered “fighting words” or an actual threat.
But this is all silly. Even the oh-so-libertarian American laws make exceptions for things like direct threats of bodily harm. You can keep pretending all you like that Americans can walk around making death threats with impunity, but it just isn’t so.
On preview, Larry beat me to it :mad: , but i’m posting anyway. 
Personally, i believe that those obscenity laws should be thrown in the garbage too.
I looked around (I didn’t know about this case), and it seems it’s basically what he has been saying as a basis for why homosexuality is an inferior behavior and shouldn’t be protected by the law. He thinks homosexuality is decadent, is behaviorhal and could be corrected, etc… He accepts it as a tolerated but deviant lifestyle that should be kept private.
So, he’s nothing like a french Phelps.
As for the law itself I’m going to try to translate it :
“Persons who, using one of the means listed in the article 23, incited to discrimination, hatred or violence against a person or a group of persons, on the basis of their origin, gender, health condition, handicap, lifestyle (I don’t know how to correctly translate the french word “moeurs”, lifestyle seems to somehow convey the meaning), sexual orientation, belonging or lack thereof, real or alleged, to a given ethnicity, nation, race or religion shall be punished…” (1 year jail sentence and/or a 45 000 € fine).
Just to add that the vote of this inclusion of gays as a protected group followed a high profile case similar to the M. Sheppard case in the USA, where a gay was burned to death by his assaulters.
Just to indicate these laws are not unique to France:
And what is the logical reason for not protecting libel? What is the logical reason why the libel is protected when it’s directed to a group rather than to a individual?
By the way, the music on TV was so loud I wanted to turn it down, and noticed it was a ballet, on the franco-german channel ARTE (air TV, not satellite or cable), with dancers in the nude. Both sexes, full frontal nudity. At 8 PM. Not that common, and not perfectly related to the topic at hand, but still somehow related, and I just had to mention the coincidence.
That then, is a whole different thing. It looks like French law (and/or Canadian law) do provide for free speech. Where they draw the line, is where someone acts on it. Likewise here in the U.S. A person can say something, but if that “something” incites a riot or other crime, then it becomes a criminal matter. It is not the speech itself, it’s the incitement.
By the way, the small part I caught was pretty beautiful. I’m not sure about men, due to the dandling bits, but I sure think after watching this that women should dance ballets in the nude. No comparison here.
Sorry for the hijack.
No. Maybe “incited” isn’t the correct legal term here, because it doesn’t require that someone acts on it. If I say “Jews should be killed”, I can be prosecuted, whether or not someone follows my advice and actually kills a Jew.
he called CHRISTIAN EXTREMISTS a “threat to humanity”. He insists that he did not say CHRISTIAN EXTREMISTS were dangerous “only that they are inferior to ATHEISTS and could, in extreme circumstances, become a danger to mankind.”
he called AMERICANS a “threat to humanity”. He insists that he did not say AMERICANS were dangerous “only that they are inferior to EUROPEANS and could, in extreme circumstances, become a danger to mankind.”
he called REPUBLICANS a “threat to humanity”. He insists that he did not say REPUBLICANS were dangerous “only that they are inferior to DEMOCRATS and could, in extreme circumstances, become a danger to mankind.”
I’ve heard worse on the SDMB. But whatever. How awful it may be, it’s still wrong to censor it. Not just because it’s wrong to set yourself up as a moral superior human, and claim authority to censor other people for the their opinions, when they’re not directly threatening or defaming another specific person. But as much because it’s harmful to your cause. Censoring will not prevent the people from believing what they do, or saying it. It’s just going to lend them credibility and an importance they seldom deserve. Debate when there’s any thing to debate, and ridicule when not - have always been the best way to deal with such extremists.
Whatever happened to Voltaire “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it” ? Did the French forget him, or what?
France is such a funny cunt of a country. Back when the Iraq war started, I was personally disgusted by the whole “Freedom Fries” bullshit, but since then I’ve learned how well France has integrated its Muslim minorities, etc.
Yeah, teach the US about hate speech and whatnot while having millions live in ghettos. Actions before words, baby.