Do you agree with this jail term?

[squarecut1]

A member of a right wing, anti-immigrant part in France has been jailed for 9 months for using racial slur against the country's black justice minister, comparing her to chimpanzee.

She has also been barred from contesting elections for 5 years. Plus a fine of $68K.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...tenced-to-jail-monkey-slur-christiane-taubira

Should this speech be protected under freedom of speech? Your thoughts?

 

[Zaap]

Should this speech be protected under freedom of speech? Your thoughts?

In the US? Sure.

In France? No.
They're free to be as totalitarian as they want.

 

[werepossum]

France does not have freedom of speech as we know it. As for principle, I'd be more inclined to be outraged on Leclere's behalf were she not acting like an ass hat. As a conservative my outrage is limited and I choose not to waste it on behalf of ass hats.

 

[Fayd]

France does not have freedom of speech as we know it. As for principle, I'd be more inclined to be outraged on Leclere's behalf were she not acting like an ass hat. As a conservative my outrage is limited and I choose not to waste it on behalf of ass hats.

First they came for the asshats, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an asshat.

Then they came for the dumbshits, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a dumbshit.

Then they came for the douchebags, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a douchebag.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.



free speech isn't to protect speech you agree with. it's there to protect speech you don't. I realize this is in frogland, but curtailment to free speech (because the message is unpopular) happens here too, and it shouldn't.

 

[squarecut1]

The whole concept of freedom of speech in the US is in practice, just a theory. In reality, the speech we hear is quite tailored and restricted.

 

[werepossum]

First they came for the asshats, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an asshat.

Then they came for the dumbshits, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a dumbshit.

Then they came for the douchebags, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a douchebag.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

free speech isn't to protect speech you agree with. it's there to protect speech you don't. I realize this is in frogland, but curtailment to free speech (because the message is unpopular) happens here too, and it shouldn't.

That's a very good point. However, I prefer a slightly different version:

First they came for the asshats, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an asshat.

Then they came for the dumbshits, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a dumbshit.

Then they came for the douchebags, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a douchebag.

Then I looked around and thought "Wow, what a great place this is with all the ass hats, dumb shits and douche bags gone!"

Besides, what are the odds that a bunch of ass hats, dumb shits and douche bags were going to speak for me anyway?

 

[nehalem256]

Yet another example of liberal "tolerance" I guess.

Makes me want to eat a giant basket of freedom fries

 

[Jaskalas]

Yet another example of liberal "tolerance" I guess.

Makes me want to eat a giant basket of freedom fries

!@#$ the French, I will eat all their fries. Then what will they have?!

As for the topic... are the French not free to outlaw speech? It is what separates America from Europe and if they think it works for them... okay. Though I suspect their policy is highly subjective and largely targeted against today's undesirables, or those who anger leaders.

Basically I'm saying it might be a highly selective law where most people can escape punishment, until they catch the interest of an elected official who wants to bury them for whatever reason. Date the wrong girl? Her father knows that you called someone a "monkey"... have fun in jail!

The United States is not a country that should be condemning anyone else for prison policies. Our "Justice" system houses, perhaps, the greatest injustice in the world with our inflated inmate population.

 

[squarecut1]

Yet another example of liberal "tolerance" I guess.

Do you feel the same about France's controversial ban on the veil? Do you condemn that as well?

 

[nehalem256]

Do you feel the same about France's controversial ban on the veil? Do you condemn that as well?

Yes. Lefties really seem to hate freedom.

 

[Fayd]

That's a very good point. However, I prefer a slightly different version:

First they came for the asshats, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an asshat.

Then they came for the dumbshits, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a dumbshit.

Then they came for the douchebags, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a douchebag.

Then I looked around and thought "Wow, what a great place this is with all the ass hats, dumb shits and douche bags gone!"

Besides, what are the odds that a bunch of ass hats, dumb shits and douche bags were going to speak for me anyway?

the point is you don't agree with anyone on everything. you can't. free exchange in the marketplace of ideas is the only way for the best ideas to come to fruition, and that free exchange cannot happen if ideas that are unpopular are silenced.

 

[Zorba]

That's a very good point. However, I prefer a slightly different version:

First they came for the asshats, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an asshat.

Then they came for the dumbshits, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a dumbshit.

Then they came for the douchebags, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a douchebag.

Then I looked around and thought "Wow, what a great place this is with all the ass hats, dumb shits and douche bags gone!"

Besides, what are the odds that a bunch of ass hats, dumb shits and douche bags were going to speak for me anyway?

:thumbsup:

 

[Abwx]

A member of a right wing, anti-immigrant part in France has been jailed for 9 months for using racial slur against the country's black justice minister, comparing her to chimpanzee.

She has also been barred from contesting elections for 5 years. Plus a fine of $68K.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...tenced-to-jail-monkey-slur-christiane-taubira

Should this speech be protected under freedom of speech? Your thoughts?

She s not jailed , she appealled the sentence, beside neither did she present herself at the trial nor did his lawyer, judges do not like thiis at all, indeed with no defense how could they estimate the extent, or lack of , of the outrage.?.

Not to say that i find the sentence light...

 

[Zorba]

The whole concept of freedom of speech in the US is in practice, just a theory. In reality, the speech we hear is quite tailored and restricted.

You got anything to back that up? Do you see some of things people say about and to sitting presidents? No you can't directly threaten the life of the POTUS, but you can call him any name you want while waving at him with as many fingers as you choose.

 

[Fern]

She s not jailed , she appealled the sentence, beside neither did she present herself at the trial nor did his lawyer, judges do not like thiis at all, indeed with no defense how could they estimate the extent, or lack of , of the outrage.?.

Not to say that i find the sentence light...

According the article the woman in question live in France (as in 'Europe') while the court was held in Cayenne (as in South America). Not surprising that she didn't show up.

Yeah, she should appeal.

No, in general one shouldn't be put is jail for staying stupid things.

Nor should one be barred from for office for saying stupid things. From what I can tell it's actually a qualification to be elected.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

the point is you don't agree with anyone on everything. you can't. free exchange in the marketplace of ideas is the only way for the best ideas to come to fruition, and that free exchange cannot happen if ideas that are unpopular are silenced.

Agreed, but is calling some black political opponent a monkey really a serious idea? I'd say it's more of an anti-idea.

Whichever, I'm not particularly in favor of such a law and sentence. I just can't muster any sympathy for this particular individual.

 

[realibrad]

That's a very good point. However, I prefer a slightly different version:

First they came for the asshats, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an asshat.

Then they came for the dumbshits, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a dumbshit.

Then they came for the douchebags, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a douchebag.

Then I looked around and thought "Wow, what a great place this is with all the ass hats, dumb shits and douche bags gone!"

Besides, what are the odds that a bunch of ass hats, dumb shits and douche bags were going to speak for me anyway?

What scares me is the people who decide who is what. I feel like I'm a reasonable person, yet others call me an oil thug and dumb shit. If/when those people get into power, I am screwed.

Better to let stupid people talk, then stupid people to decide who is stupid.

 

[BoberFett]

That's a very good point. However, I prefer a slightly different version:

First they came for the asshats, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an asshat.

Then they came for the dumbshits, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a dumbshit.

Then they came for the douchebags, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a douchebag.

Then I looked around and thought "Wow, what a great place this is with all the ass hats, dumb shits and douche bags gone!"

Besides, what are the odds that a bunch of ass hats, dumb shits and douche bags were going to speak for me anyway?

In this very forum, there are a number of people who think YOU are an asshat, dumbshit, and douchebag.

 

[MongGrel]

First they came for the asshats, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an asshat.

Then they came for the dumbshits, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a dumbshit.

Then they came for the douchebags, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a douchebag.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.



free speech isn't to protect speech you agree with. it's there to protect speech you don't. I realize this is in frogland, but curtailment to free speech (because the message is unpopular) happens here too, and it shouldn't.

Some may not know what you altered this from.

Being intentionally obtuse has it's drawbacks some days, though most do know it I imagine.

 

[werepossum]

What scares me is the people who decide who is what. I feel like I'm a reasonable person, yet others call me an oil thug and dumb shit. If/when those people get into power, I am screwed.

Better to let stupid people talk, then stupid people to decide who is stupid.

Excellent point. That's the kind of power that anyone willing to have it can't be trusted with it.

In this very forum, there are a number of people who think YOU are an asshat, dumbshit, and douchebag.

lol Yep, and happy to come for me too, were they able.

 

[squarecut1]

You got anything to back that up? Do you see some of things people say about and to sitting presidents? No you can't directly threaten the life of the POTUS, but you can call him any name you want while waving at him with as many fingers as you choose.

There is a de facto lack of freedom of speech, relating to how information and ideas are controlled.

There are certain things you can never hear on the media, which goes against the liberal agenda, and the assumptions it is based on. Similarly, there are the sacred cows of the conservative side - no one can say anything about those. And further still, there are things which either side does not allow to be spoken of. It is all very well controlled

Name calling and all that - yes, everyone is free to do that. But that is hardly something that actually has any affect of change. It is the useless kind of freedom of speech.

 

[realibrad]

Excellent point. That's the kind of power that anyone willing to have it can't be trusted with it.


lol Yep, and happy to come for me too, were they able.

Which is why I live in the Bestest more mostest freeest country in the world!

I actually really do love this country. My life is awesome.

 

[JEDIYoda]

A member of a right wing, anti-immigrant part in France has been jailed for 9 months for using racial slur against the country's black justice minister, comparing her to chimpanzee.

She has also been barred from contesting elections for 5 years. Plus a fine of $68K.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...stiane-taubira

Should this speech be protected under freedom of speech? Your thoughts?

France is not the USA...they can do whatever they wish.........

 

[JEDIYoda]

First they came for the asshats, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an asshat.

Then they came for the dumbshits, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a dumbshit.

Then they came for the douchebags, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a douchebag.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.



free speech isn't to protect speech you agree with. it's there to protect speech you don't. I realize this is in frogland, but curtailment to free speech (because the message is unpopular) happens here too, and it shouldn't.
__________________

nice spin...but that has nothing to do in a country that does not have free speech as we know it...

 

[Fayd]

nice spin...but that has nothing to do in a country that does not have free speech as we know it...

perhaps you didn't read the last line of my post?

And no spin. just genuine concern from a person who truly wants his country to stay on the strait and narrow.