So much for 'freedom of speech', eh, France?

(=_=)

2015-01-18 01:59:05 UTC

Post by (=_=)
They marched in the streets by the millions to defend 'freedom of speech and
expression' . . . and then promptly turned around and started to arrest those
whose speech and expression they found issue with.
Does anyone not grasp the hypocrisy of the French in this case - and the
hypocrisy of ANY country or culture that defends the concept of free speech for
some and denies it to others in their own country?
Stephen Harper & Co are such a government. And if we don't want to go down the
road of Naziism and the McCarthyism of the U.S., we'd better get it right this
time around.
Canada is poised to become one of the greatest hypocrisies in modern times.
___________________________________________

January 16, 2015 - Globe and Mail

After Paris attacks, blurred lines over free speech issues

French performer's arrest over Facebook post highlights difficulties in trying
to maintain liberties while deterring hatred

Last Sunday, millions of people took to the streets of Paris to condemn the
deadly attacks on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and to stand behind its
right to publish whatever it wanted, even cartoons some considered offensive.

Just three days later, however, the broad consensus in support of freedom of
expression seemed to dissolve when French police arrested a notorious performer
for a Facebook post in which he identified with one of the attackers.

The apparent contradiction prompted charges of hypocrisy both within France and
beyond (in the words of U.S. comedian Jon Stewart: "Je suis confused").

Yet it's not as inconsistent as it first appears. While the right to free
speech is enshrined in the constitutional law of many countries, nowhere is the
right an unfettered one. And different countries have reached distinct
conclusions on where the limits are. Just how far can you go in saying or
writing things that are offensive, outrageous or hateful? The answer depends
very much on where you are.

When it comes to laws concerning freedom of expression, Americans are from Mars
and Europeans are from Venus (Canadians are closer to Europeans, but more on
that later).

In court decisions in recent decades, the U.S. has cemented its status as an
outlier on matters of free speech. It has no laws criminalizing "hate speech,"
unlike Western European nations and Canada. It's possible to sue someone for
slander or libel in the U.S., but if you're a public figure, the threshold for
winning such cases is higher.

By contrast, Western European nations have laws penalizing certain kinds of
public speech – forms of expression that incite hatred on the basis of race,
religion or ethnicity, or that condone or make light of genocide. Some
countries – including France – have laws prohibiting the glorification of
terrorism. France has moved swiftly to invoke that law in the wake of the Paris
attacks, with up to 100 people under investigation, according to The New York
Times.

The debate within France in recent days suffers from two mythologies, said
Pascal Mbongo, a law professor at the University of Poitiers in France. The
first is the notion that France, or Europe more broadly, is a leader in freedom
of expression. That's not true, he said. Instead, freedom of speech consists of
"what one has the right to say within the limits of the law."

The second myth, equally untrue, he said, is that there is no freedom of
expression in France. It's a view that tends to be embraced, for instance, by
fans of Dieudonné M'bala M'bala, the performer arrested earlier this week,
whose shows have been cancelled for their anti-Semitic content. The issue there
is that "what they want to say is what the law prohibits," Prof. Mbongo said.

France has levelled numerous penalties against well-known figures under its
hate speech laws. John Galliano, the fashion designer, was fined €6,000
($8,300) in 2011 after making anti-Semitic remarks. The former movie star
Brigitte Bardot has been convicted five times under hate speech laws for her
comments against Muslims and ordered repeatedly to pay up.

Charlie Hebdo itself had to defend itself in court dozens of times from such
charges under French law, not always successfully. It did, however, emerge
victorious in a case brought by Muslim groups that asserted its cartoons,
including one featuring the Prophet Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, incited
hatred against members of their religion. In 2007, a judge disagreed.

Tackling such cases involving religion – unlike accusations of racism, for
instance – has proven tricky for French jurists, said Prof. Mbongo. That's
partially because the country has a long tradition of hostility toward
religious authority, he said.

Indeed, each country's historical experience plays a key role in determining
its approach to laws governing freedom of speech. It's not considered remotely
controversial in Germany that the law prohibits denying the Holocaust or
displaying Nazi symbols – even though such restrictions would be unacceptable
in the U.S.

In Canada, too, certain kinds of hate speech are criminal acts – advocating
genocide, for instance, or willfully promoting hatred of any identifiable group
distinguished by "colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."
The number of prosecutions under such sections of the criminal code, however,
has been less extensive than in Western Europe.

It's also important when discussing freedom of expression to remember the
distinction between what the law protects and what mainstream opinion will
stomach. While you cannot be prosecuted legally for saying something hateful or
offensive in the U.S., there are likely to be other kinds of consequences – in
the form of public disapprobation, for example, or lost customers or even lost
employment.

Eric Heinze, a law professor at the University of London, said it was important
not to exaggerate the U.S. stance in favour of freedom of expression. It, too,
has limits: Using speech to place people in imminent danger is not protected,
nor is revealing information deemed vital to national security (just ask Edward
Snowden). In certain cases, U.S. prosecutors have also targeted speech
supporting terrorist groups.

Yet Prof. Heinze prefers the U.S. approach, which protects public discourse
regardless of its point of view. In comparison, he said, countries such as
France have travelled too far into a legalistic realm that its citizens don't
instinctively understand, with harmful consequences.

"You can draw super, razor-sharp distinctions and lines to try to distinguish
these Mohammed cartoons from what Dieudonné says," said Prof. Heinze, but the
result is a double standard. The effort produces not only arbitrary
distinctions – as the law often does – but lines that damage a citizen's
fundamental rights, he said. "You will always get a deep hypocrisy and not just
the inevitable marginal one."