So fierce an assault that the thought was wiped out entirely. But I’ll bet it was a good one, and the example would doubtless have knocked our socks off.
That’s what you get for not viewing your own thread. Famous last words department: “I never thought it would happen to me.” (Damn you hamsters, damn you to hell) Thanks, David Simmons.
THE NEW OP:
In France, calling Islam “dumb” may be a crime.
I like the U.S. system better. You can be charged for threats, incitement to violence, or conspiracy if there is an overt act.
This seems to prove the slippery slope arguments which people make when discussing speech laws. When a malevolent character in a novel can be used as evidence in a criminal trial, something is wrong.
Here’s one POV from Michael Radu, Director of the Center on Terrorism and Counterterrorism at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia.
Yeah, december, you tell them!! The scarfies are scum!!! Let’s kill them all!!!
Oh brother.
French law is amazing - they actually have a law (recent) which holds that a person is innocent until proven guilty - this is NOT the traditional view of the Napoleonic Code.
Anyone know of a brief overview of French law in regards to personal liberties/rights/freedoms vis-a-vis the State?
So, getting busted for writing fiction is now acceptable in a western democracy - the mullahs in Iran would be proud!
(at least in the US, the concept of ‘intent’ comes into play - did the accused intend harm? Does French law recognize this concept?)
And may I ask what is this law?
By the way, the innocent until proven guilty doesn’t come from the Napoleonic code but from the 1789 “Declaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen” which has constitutionnal value.
I don’t. However, as stated above, the basis is the “declaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen”, so you could search for a translation of it. But it would be like trying to figure out what the situation is in the US by just reading the bill of rights, so I’m not sure it would help much.
Nope. Being sued for what you said during an interview about your book is now acceptable in a western democracy. But actually, I was under the impression it wasn’t something new.
The accused intended to have a lot of free advertising for his book. Concerning the legal part of your question, I’ve no clue.
Thinking twice, if your question was : is it necessary to have the intend of actually harming a particular person for the laws against “incitment to racial hatred” to apply? then the answer is no. Just saying publically “chinese people should be killed”, even if you don’t take any step towards actually killing chinese people, is a crime. Actually, AFAIK, merely publishing “chinese people are an inferior race” is a crime.
So, if I say “Islam is a gutter religion” in France, I’m in trouble?
How about “The poor should be forcibly sterilized”?
“Kill the pigs”?
In the US, the concept of “group libel” is, at best, theoretical - can anybody cite an action which won?
Please note, getting sued is not at issue. It has always been the case that one can be sued for defamation.
That is an abuse of governmental authority. Talk about a chilling effect. Sarcasm could get you jailed. I have been known to commit serial sarcasm myself.
Add to this the example Sweden, where it is now a crime to critizise homosexuality.
As the left becomes more entrenched in Western and Northern Europe, I am sure we will see many examples of such assinine legislation.
I suppose there still is ‘Freedom of Speech’, but only if you say the right things?
I’d love to hear a French doper explain this kind of thing. Are there any French dopers in the area? Eh? You, in the back, stand up now so everyone can hear. Please tell the class why you believe Michel Houellebecq belongs in jail.
Is Havel2002 French? Maybe he can help us out.
Point of Order:
As an old lefty, I do not consider this a right/left issue.
It is an example of excessive government - both right and left are guilty of this, so I think it transcends such labels.
I agree. Both the extreme left and the extreme right seem to circle back into the extremely oppressive.
By the way, “chilling effect,” which I mentioned before, is a term of art in the area of free speech. Here is a link regarding internet speech. Laws like the one in question could easily be applied to internet speech. If so, there are some people (myself included) on this board who might do hard time.
No, only if you say the left things. 
1)Nope. Islam isn’t a race. I understand they’re trying to prove that the author actually targeted arabs under the cover of an attack against thier religion, or something like that.
2)I don’t think you could be prosecuted for that, either.
3)Nope. The races must be human, AFAIK.
I believe he belongs to working in a factory or exploring the remote parts of Amazonian rainforest instead of publishing books and expressing his mind in the medias.
In this case, I don’t think he deserves anything legally-wise since apparently he merely stated that Islam was a backward religion in the most provocative way he could think of or something to this effect, and didn’t say anything racist. I doubt he will be sentenced (but I didn’t follow the case, so perhaps there’s more to it than I know).
The overwhelming majority of french people are supportive of the laws about “incitment to racial hatred”, by the way. It’s a non-issue, here, except of course in the extreme-right. Le Pen, for instance, complained about the restrictions to his rights of free speech, since he was prosecuted in both France and Germany for antisemitic (or more exactly revisionists IIRC) speechs he made (denying the holocaust also is a crime in France).
Personnaly, I do consider “kill the XXX!!!” as a death threat if I happen to be a XXX. So, I don’t have much issue with that, either. Deciding that “kill the black people” and “kill Mr Smith” are essentially different seem rather arbitrary to me when Mr Smith happens to be black.
But I can’t elaborate, since I don’t know much about what the laws are exactly, what the jurisprudence is, or where the line is drawn exactly.
Thanks for the response. I guess this is one of those things that Americans and Europeans just don’t see eye to eye on. I can’t fathom making it a crime to deny the holocaust, or call Islam a stupid religion for that matter, it is the antithesis of freedom. As you are probably aware it is often the left in this country that fights to protect such rights.
As a pure policy matter I am of the opinion that such laws are likely to have the effect of incouraging hate speach and biased beliefs. Any law to protect “the jews” in particular is only going to be seen by the Anit-Semite crowd as further proof of the global conspiracy.
OK, races are protected. Are other groups? Religious entities, I take it are fair game?
- and -
If we are going to broaden this to European v. American approaches to personal liberties (I favor the US position of “Let the idiot prove himself a bigot - that way we know who is who”):
If a European changes his/her address (to a new city within the same country), are they required to register with law enforcement?
If I recall correctly, I heard that, in Europe, persons were required to inform the local police when they moved, even if they did not cross a national boundary. True?
(yes, in the US, one should send a change-of-address form to the post office (to get mail forwarded), get new driver’s license/car registration, and register to vote. But only convicts of certain types are required to inform the police/law enforcement of their whereabouts (sex offenders, for one))
Truly, for fucks sake! Happyheathen, for the good of humanity in general and the SDMB in particular…. use one page of europa.eu.int as your daily reading chore.
This is how it is: You are required to register your primary and secondary domicile in the EU with the local tax authorities. It’s got to do with where you will be taxed and where you will have the right to receive welfare and social security benefits.
How the state/region/community that you choose to live in will administrate your registration will vary. In some cases it will be a pendant of the law enforcement agencies and in some cases it will be pendant of the local civil administration, while in others it will be directly with the tax authorities.
In NO case, I repeat NO case is it so that you will be registered with the actual police. This would be highly unconstitutional in the EU, which happens to have some of the harshest privacy protection data laws in the world, much harsher than for instance the US.
For instance; a corporation isn’t even allowed to internally export customer databases to the US without the written consent by every registered individual in said database since EU law dictates that a nation receiving data about an individual, collected in the EU, must have the same or higher laws of privacy protection as the EU, which the US lacks.
Is there anything more Happyheathen? Shall I open a new “ask the Europeans” thread for you?
Sparc
So, at least in some places, it is the police who collect this information.
Thank you for confirming that such registration is required.
What data is collected by the EU which is subject to such privacy rights? I take it that data collected by non-governmental agencies is not so bound.
Any thread you like, but as this one is current, it seems the most logical choice.