|
|
The whole ordeal is becoming a farce. So many political figures at Paris last Sunday actively practice censorship, it's just that mass media doesn't really talk about it a lot. Dieudonné, idiot that he may be, was arrested for saying that he supported the terrorist attack. While it's an incredibly stupid point of view (Dieudonné seriously please just shut up), there is no reason for him to be arrested for that. Will the crap he says inspire hate? It's possible, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. If the government censors someone for saying stupid things, the government's stance is that people are too stupid to figure out for themselves what's right from what's wrong. Rather than let people think about an issue and decide for themselves what they think, they go ahead and think for everyone else. That is incredibly dangerous in my eyes; it's comparable to terrorism in that you can face severe consequences (terrorist attack on one hand, arrest on the other) for simply saying "bad" things.
It's on the same level as the government who wants to invade your private life "à la 1984" who then justifies it as an act for "security". People need to wake up, this is pretty much unacceptable.
http://i.imgur.com/eKGsF.jpg
The amount of political tumors that have spawned on this affair is becoming quite disgusting.
|
What a joke. For all the talk about freedom and free speech they don't even dare publish the cover....
|
The real irony of this attack is that i had absolutely no clue about charlie hebdo or the cartoons they drew that insulted mohammed, now i do.
|
On January 15 2015 19:18 Incognoto wrote:The whole ordeal is becoming a farce. So many political figures at Paris last Sunday actively practice censorship, it's just that mass media doesn't really talk about it a lot. Dieudonné, idiot that he may be, was arrested for saying that he supported the terrorist attack. While it's an incredibly stupid point of view (Dieudonné seriously please just shut up), there is no reason for him to be arrested for that. Will the crap he says inspire hate? It's possible, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. If the government censors someone for saying stupid things, the government's stance is that people are too stupid to figure out for themselves what's right from what's wrong. Rather than let people think about an issue and decide for themselves what they think, they go ahead and think for everyone else. That is incredibly dangerous in my eyes; it's comparable to terrorism in that you can face severe consequences (terrorist attack on one hand, arrest on the other) for simply saying "bad" things. It's on the same level as the government who wants to invade your private life "à la 1984" who then justifies it as an act for "security". People need to wake up, this is pretty much unacceptable. http://i.imgur.com/eKGsF.jpgThe amount of political tumors that have spawned on this affair is becoming quite disgusting.
Afaik what Dieudonné has done is considered as a violation of French law, which means that the government has nothing to do with it, and that his arrest is legit.
|
Yes, well, I have a problem with that law and those who voted it.
|
|
|
On January 15 2015 20:12 Incognoto wrote:
Yes, well, I have a problem with that law and those who voted it.
Then you have a problem with history, philosophers and intellectuals.
You have free speech but racism, negationism, defamation, insult (towards people), incitation to violence and apology of terrorism are all prohibited. Before saying that you have a problem with a law like that give your arguments and understand the arguments of the ones who implemented these laws.
That's like those Facebook guys who just discovered what was free speech.
Also, Dieudoné has been convicted several times for racism and anti semitism speech. He is a negationist and racist retard who is close to extreme right loonies like Alain Soral.
His words were another provocation and in my opinion he should be fined and punished until he stops. It's not the first time for him, for 10 years he has been like that so every word that comes out of his mouth that sounds like racism is racism in his case, he has proved time and time again that he is one.
|
On January 15 2015 19:53 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 19:18 Incognoto wrote:The whole ordeal is becoming a farce. So many political figures at Paris last Sunday actively practice censorship, it's just that mass media doesn't really talk about it a lot. Dieudonné, idiot that he may be, was arrested for saying that he supported the terrorist attack. While it's an incredibly stupid point of view (Dieudonné seriously please just shut up), there is no reason for him to be arrested for that. Will the crap he says inspire hate? It's possible, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. If the government censors someone for saying stupid things, the government's stance is that people are too stupid to figure out for themselves what's right from what's wrong. Rather than let people think about an issue and decide for themselves what they think, they go ahead and think for everyone else. That is incredibly dangerous in my eyes; it's comparable to terrorism in that you can face severe consequences (terrorist attack on one hand, arrest on the other) for simply saying "bad" things. It's on the same level as the government who wants to invade your private life "à la 1984" who then justifies it as an act for "security". People need to wake up, this is pretty much unacceptable. http://i.imgur.com/eKGsF.jpgThe amount of political tumors that have spawned on this affair is becoming quite disgusting. Afaik what Dieudonné has done is considered as a violation of French law, which means that the government has nothing to do with it, and that his arrest is legit.
Yes it's because of terrorism apology which is prohibited.
|
I do have a problem with it. A racist person is still racist even if he isn't allowed to say it. These kinds of laws basically state that you're allowed to be racist, you just aren't allowed to show it.
If defamation and insult isn't tolerated then please explain why CH's (admittedly terrible) caricatures are worshiped at the moment in the name of free speech, when they insult religious people? Isn't portraying Muhammad in satire an incentive to violence? Isn't associating religion to terrorism a kind of defamation towards Muslims?
Why would you allow a Creationist to spout his bullshit and not allow someone like Dieudonné to spout his own?
The line is very, very fuzzy. Double standards, everywhere.
I also never said I agree with Dieudonné, I don't adhere to his views at all and he is an idiot to me. I don't need you to put words in my mouth, I don't condone the crap he says at all. However, he should be allowed to say it.
"Dangerous" ideas shouldn't be out lawed (which is censorship). If you want to combat possibly dangerous notions then you should do so through education. People should be the ones to decide for themselves what is wrong and right, I disagree with the notion that the government as an establishment should decide what is right and wrong.
I believe that racist people should be allowed to say what's on their mind. At very least, it helps understand where racism comes from and it indicates a path where corrective action may be taken from. Racist people shouldn't be allowed to commit racist acts, obviously. Negationism should also be allowed to negate history if they so wish. Allow them to express themselves and then anyone with half a brain will see that their arguments are flawed and their statements aren't backed up at all.
The idea is that people are intelligent enough to figure out these things for themselves; a government doesn't need to do my thinking for me.
Of course, I'm sure that there are at least some flaws with my reasoning. I'd rather someone point out the flaws themselves with their own arguments rather than just saying "intellectuals said so, so it must be OK".
|
On January 15 2015 19:29 RvB wrote:What a joke. For all the talk about freedom and free speech they don't even dare publish the cover....
What a joke. For all the talk about freedom and free speech they yell at all the people that didnt publish the cover....
Freedom of speech is not only in the way you want it to be. It's for all opinions, not only yours.
|
On January 15 2015 22:00 Incognoto wrote:
I do have a problem with it. A racist person is still racist even if he isn't allowed to say it. These kinds of laws basically state that you're allowed to be racist, you just aren't allowed to show it.
If defamation and insult isn't tolerated then please explain why CH's (admittedly terrible) caricatures are worshiped at the moment in the name of free speech, when they insult religious people? Isn't portraying Muhammad in satire an incentive to violence? Isn't associating religion to terrorism a kind of defamation towards Muslims?
Why would you allow a Creationist to spout his bullshit and not allow someone like Dieudonné to spout his own?
The line is very, very fuzzy. Double standards, everywhere.
I also never said I agree with Dieudonné, I don't adhere to his views at all and he is an idiot to me. I don't need you to put words in my mouth, I don't condone the crap he says at all. However, he should be allowed to say it.
"Dangerous" ideas shouldn't be out lawed (which is censorship). If you want to combat possibly dangerous notions then you should do so through education. People should be the ones to decide for themselves what is wrong and right, I disagree with the notion that the government as an establishment should decide what is right and wrong.
I believe that racist people should be allowed to say what's on their mind. At very least, it helps understand where racism comes from and it indicates a path where corrective action may be taken from. Racist people shouldn't be allowed to commit racist acts, obviously. Negationism should also be allowed to negate history if they so wish. Allow them to express themselves and then anyone with half a brain will see that their arguments are flawed and their statements aren't backed up at all.
The idea is that people are intelligent enough to figure out these things for themselves; a government doesn't need to do my thinking for me.
Of course, I'm sure that there are at least some flaws with my reasoning. I'd rather someone point out the flaws themselves with their own arguments rather than just saying "intellectuals said so, so it must be OK".
Well, the problem with Dieudonné is that the bullshit he says is listened to. So while I have no problem with him saying racist things, I do have some problems with the fact that many people, some young, listen to his word and believe it gospel.
Also, creationist shit and what Dieudonné says is a bit different too. Saying dumb things is not the same as saying dumb warmongering things. In France it's forbidden to say things that may trouble a great deal our citizen's peace, not to say dumb things in general.
So yeah, no racism, no insult (towards a people as Acertos said), no incitation to violence (can't be more clear than that, creationism doesn't incite to violence, racism does...) and no apology of terrorism.
I can see how you could have a problem with it, but I for one think not every word is worth being spoken. As long as we as a society decide together on what we don't want to hear or read, I'm fine with it.
Also:
The idea is that people are intelligent enough to figure out these things for themselves.
This is a very hopeful and positive yet very naive idea.
|
Intellectuals, politicians and philosophers all understood that no, people aren't smart. Else our politicians wouldn't ride on the wave of "it's the immigrant's fault". Populism has always worked and will always work, it seems you hold humanity in too high regards.
What I'm saying is that it is purely logical. If you let some people say racist things you divide your society, you create this sentiment of us versus them.
People are already denouncing ethnic minorities as regards to their traditions, their practices, their ideas etc... And there is already hate and violence because of that. Some people lie and make other people believe things like "the zionist conspiracy" or that the West should be destroyed. Do you think that we should allow terrorists to say what they want in France? As long as they don't act on it? That's just dumb and what would happen if you would let every looney speak his mind is that more people who have nothing to lose would listen to them and commit terrorism.
And if you think that insulting a religion = insulting people who practice this religion then you are wrong and it is in no way an invitation to violence against these practicers. There is a clear difference between a belief and nature: religion, socialism, vegetalism are ideologies, being black, being jew, being asian can't be changed so while you should be able to insult and criticise as much as you want ideas, you shouldn't do the same with people because it would obviously lead to violence.
|
On January 15 2015 22:21 Acertos wrote:
Intellectuals, politicians and philosophers all understood that no, people aren't smart. Else our politicians wouldn't ride on the wave of "it's the immigrant's fault". Populism has always worked and will always work, it seems you hold humanity in too high regards.
What I'm saying is that it is purely logical. If you let some people say racist things you divide your society, you create this sentiment of us versus them.
People are already denouncing ethnic minorities as regards to their traditions, their practices, their ideas etc... And there is already hate and violence because of that. Some people lie and make other people believe things like "the zionist conspiracy" or that the West should be destroyed. Do you think that we should allow terrorists to say what they want in France? As long as they don't act on it? That's just dumb and what would happen if you would let every looney speak his mind is that more people who have nothing to lose would listen to them and commit terrorism.
And if you think that insulting a religion = insulting people who practice this religion then you are wrong and it is in no way an invitation to violence against these practicers. There is a clear difference between a belief and nature: religion, socialism, vegetalism are ideologies, being black, being jew, being asian can't be changed so while you should be able to insult and criticised as much as you want ideas you shouldn't do the same with people because it would obviously lead to violence.
Great post, couldn't say it better 
|
People aren't stupid. If you back a person into a corner through poor education and a shitty environment, no, they won't be "intellectual". Treat people like they're stupid and you will obtain a society of stupid people. This is exactly the kind of thing which should be avoided at all cost. Treat people like they're intelligent for a change and see how they respond how they adapt to the situation. "Intelligence" isn't genetic, it's linked to education.
People aren't stupid because they're actually stupid, people are conditioned to be stupid. As of right now, indeed, freedom of speech might be nefarious since there are too many dumb fucks in France. However banning dangerous ideas is only covering the problem and treating the symptoms of the disease. If you want to treat the problem at its core, censorship doesn't work. Education and critical thinking are the way to go. Dialogue. I firmly believe that you can completely and totally remove all limitations to free speech, however indeed it does go through proper education beforehand.
Instead of that though, what's being pushed forward is consumerism. People watch bullshit on television and impatiently wait to get the latest phone instead of reading about history and thinking about actual problems. It's becoming quite alarming. The government is unfortunately either too stupid to push education and free thinking forward, OR it just wants to keep the populace in the dark. Something I find firmly scandalous, especially when you consider that 60% of France's PIB goes into government coffers. That is a fuck-ton of money and it's not being spent well, I would consider.
Half of me is really playing the devil's advocate because I think it's really important to think about these things. I totally understand the points brought up by you two and I can agree with them. Violence should indeed NOT be encouraged, nor should societal rifts. Unfortunately, the current methods of preventing these are obviously ineffective, as proven by these recent events. If I recall correctly, the terrorists were French of birth. Societal discrepancies are still present. Censorship is nice and all but it doesn't seem to be really working; just look at the rise of the FN. If people were a bit more aware of things they would see the alarming parallels that the rise of the FN has with other events in history. Unfortunately people are treated like sheep by "intellectuals".
I was unaware that being Jewish wasn't the same as being religious though.
|
It seems a little undemocratic to simply outlaw opinions. If you have so little faith in the people that you don't trust them to ignore people like Dieudonnè then how in the world dare you trust them with voting for the government?
|
|
|
On January 15 2015 23:49 Ghostcom wrote:
It seems a little undemocratic to simply outlaw opinions. If you have so little faith in the people that you don't trust them to ignore people like Dieudonnè then how in the world dare you trust them with voting for the government?
We don't, and we just pray they don't ever become a majority :D
It's not outlawing opinions, really, it's outlawing public expression of speech that is harmful of dangerous. You really have the right to think that it would be a good idea to kill all French jews. That's an opinion, and you are perfectly entitled to have it. You don't have the right to do anything in that way because you would be a murderer, and you don't have the right to claim it because it would be inciting to racial hatred.
But you can have racially motivated hatred yourself, as long as you don't try to push it to others, in which case you become a danger for society.
|
On January 15 2015 23:49 Ghostcom wrote:
It seems a little undemocratic to simply outlaw opinions. If you have so little faith in the people that you don't trust them to ignore people like Dieudonnè then how in the world dare you trust them with voting for the government?
Tbh I think these kind of laws are not made to outlaw opinions, but to answer specific situations. For examples you can't pretend the Holocaust never existed in France because there was (is?) still a lot of antisemitism in France after WW2, so it was a good idea to avoid having people spreading bullshit without any means of actions on them. In this case what Dieudonné has been arrested for, apology of terrorism, makes sense too : imagine in a scenario like last Friday, you don't want another terrorist to be able to, say, post videos on YT telling people to go in the streets and do other terrorist acts.
|
On January 15 2015 23:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 23:49 Ghostcom wrote:
It seems a little undemocratic to simply outlaw opinions. If you have so little faith in the people that you don't trust them to ignore people like Dieudonnè then how in the world dare you trust them with voting for the government? We don't, and we just pray they don't ever become a majority :D It's not outlawing opinions, really, it's outlawing public expression of speech that is harmful of dangerous. You really have the right to think that it would be a good idea to kill all French jews. That's an opinion, and you are perfectly entitled to have it. You don't have the right to do anything in that way because you would be a murderer, and you don't have the right to claim it because it would be inciting to racial hatred. But you can have racially motivated hatred yourself, as long as you don't try to push it to others, in which case you become a danger for society.
I expected that answer :p
See the thing I dont get is who decides what constitutes a danger to society. If I lived in France I'm pretty sure I would consider Le Pen a danger to society... Heck I consider plenty of the Danish politicians a danger to society.
I would understand a law outlawing inciting to violence - but I think anyone should be allowed to state that he thinks all "insert group" are "insert derogatory term".
|
On January 15 2015 23:49 Ghostcom wrote:
It seems a little undemocratic to simply outlaw opinions. If you have so little faith in the people that you don't trust them to ignore people like Dieudonnè then how in the world dare you trust them with voting for the government?
Haha, imo trusting them to intelligently vote for a government isn't such an obviously smart move either :D. The alternatives are a bit scary to think about though, so we might as well keep that.
On January 16 2015 00:14 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 23:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 15 2015 23:49 Ghostcom wrote:
It seems a little undemocratic to simply outlaw opinions. If you have so little faith in the people that you don't trust them to ignore people like Dieudonnè then how in the world dare you trust them with voting for the government? We don't, and we just pray they don't ever become a majority :D It's not outlawing opinions, really, it's outlawing public expression of speech that is harmful of dangerous. You really have the right to think that it would be a good idea to kill all French jews. That's an opinion, and you are perfectly entitled to have it. You don't have the right to do anything in that way because you would be a murderer, and you don't have the right to claim it because it would be inciting to racial hatred. But you can have racially motivated hatred yourself, as long as you don't try to push it to others, in which case you become a danger for society. I expected that answer :p See the thing I dont get is who decides what constitutes a danger to society. If I lived in France I'm pretty sure I would consider Le Pen a danger to society... Heck I consider plenty of the Danish politicians a danger to society. I would understand a law outlawing inciting to violence - but I think anyone should be allowed to state that he thinks all "insert group" are "insert derogatory term".
Well, in theory, we all vote for people and we trust them to apply views that reflect what most want for our country. That's democracy, so if people really think Le Pen is a danger, they'll stop voting for her and her party and she will become irrelevant. What happens currently is that more and more people think Le Pen is a boon, so yeah, no danger there ;D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
