"Je Suis Charlie" and France's Free Speech Hypocrisy

[ben236]

I have little time to worry about French hypocrisy when it comes to freedom of speech. I am more urgently concerned by the hypocrisy of North American universities when it comes to freedom of speech, all of which have extensive speech codes delineating the kinds of things that cannot be said.

For many decades, the American left was a bulwark for freedom of speech. That is no longer true. Lip service may be paid, but anyone advocating hate speech laws is not for freedom of expression, even in theory.

While many Universities are publicly funded, at the end of the day, it's all about them tuition dollars whether public or private. And as long as governments keep on footing the bill for useless liberal arts degrees which make up a significant portion of most uni's tuition revenue, then Universities will keep on catering to the liberal demographic who pay the tuition to get those useless degrees. And if that involves banning speech that these bleeding heart liberals disagree with so that they don't get "triggered," then that's what they'll do as long as them tuition dollars keep rolling in.

I don't like it any more than you do. But at the end of the day, I hold the judicial branch of government to a higher standard.

 

[IDL]

Let's start from here, Judaism and Islam are religions, or ideologies depending on who you ask. The Holocaust was an actual crime against masses of Jews, Catholics, Serbs, Poles, GLBTs, gypsies, Russians and others. Critiquing a religion or ideology and denying that an actual crime against humanity occurred towards specific subsets of humanity are two completely different concepts. This kind of apples and oranges comparison is either delusional or a deliberate attempt to distort the discussion on free speech to silence opinions that would hurt the sensitivities of a victim class.

It's different, but any other historical event can be denied for whatever reason.

Let people explain why they think something and if they just show themselves to be ridiculous then so be it. That's what the US does and time goes on. Imprisonment seems overkill.

I agree with Zankou that the US really does have free speech figured out the best.

 

[Zankou]

Thank you for the great response. Isn't violence in cinema censored as well in places? Doesn't the UK have some ban on showing martial arts weapons or something? I've never paid much attention to this stuff because I don't live there so it's not my concern.

I don't know about such a ban, but another area of free speech law that is rarely understood is *libel and slander laws*. In the US, with our high powered free speech regime, it is nearly impossible to win such lawsuits, and even if you win you rarely get any money; they are famously useless. That is why every smart plaintiff in a libel case tries to sue in the UK instead of in the US -- the UK courts have incomparably more leeway to blast people for libel and slander.

The one really disappointing area for free speech in the US is that our government is allowed to dick around with and influence American press organizations to a surprising degree. Europe has us beat in that department.

 

[Ruprecht]

Charlie Hebdo - Fired that cartoonist for not apologizing for an alleged anti-Semitic cartoon. Now if a private company wants to fire someone then it isn't a violation of free speech but the guy won his case of unfair dismissal so clearly they broke the law and violated his right to free speech.

That seemed particularly over-sensitive to me. Sinet was mocking Sarkozy Jnr for his marriage to a Jewish Heiress, and the rumour that he was converting to Judaism in pursuit of money.
I get that being money-grubbing is an anti-semitic stereotype, but even so it seems a like a pretty marginal insinuation on a commentary that could be called classist and anti-capitalist, but hardly anti-semitic hate speech.

 

[Snackbar]

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/world/more...the-likeliest-we-are-charlie-result-1.2898354

Just wanted to add this as it is related to the topic going here.

I generally hate the cbc but Neil has been killing it the past few years and I always find him pretty spot on.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The one really disappointing area for free speech in the US is that our government is allowed to dick around with and influence American press organizations to a surprising degree. Europe has us beat in that department.

I totally agree here. For example it bothers me that the press has to feed the President the question ahead of time so that it can be determined which ones they will allow to be asked.

 

[mysticdragonbjj]

I'm glad to see others agree with me that the Holocaust denial laws are unnecessary. (FTR, I do believe/know the Holocaust happened and don't consider myself anti-Semetic in any way.)

I believe people who want to deny the Holocaust make themselves look very bad. But banning that is a slippery slope. Advances in science and technology often occur because someone has the guts to re-examine commonly held beliefs and publish their views with whatever evidence they feel they have.

 

[emax]

For the record, I also believe Holocaust denial should be free speech to. But I can understand why Europe feels the need to make limits there because it was not just Germany that was responsible. Many European nations were complacent or even complicit in the Holocaust and so there is an obvious pressure to atone for it. And implying it is the same as criticizing a religion is still just 800 different kinds of ridiculous.

But yes, the good ole US of A has this free speech thing figured out the best.

 

[MicroBrew]

Let's start from here, Judaism and Islam are religions, or ideologies depending on who you ask. The Holocaust was an actual crime against masses of Jews, Catholics, Serbs, Poles, GLBTs, gypsies, Russians and others. Critiquing a religion or ideology and denying that an actual crime against humanity occurred towards specific subsets of humanity are two completely different concepts. This kind of apples and oranges comparison is either delusional or a deliberate attempt to distort the discussion on free speech to silence opinions that would hurt the sensitivities of a victim class.

It doesn't matter that the Holocaust was an actual crime because some people will disagree with you that it took place or that millions were killed. They should have the right to disagree without fear of government coming down on them.

If you disagree then this intolerance for a controversial POV should be extended to other historical events. It will get to the point where people not be able to free discuss the merits and shortcomings of major historical events for fear of government.

 

[ben236]

I don't know about such a ban, but another area of free speech law that is rarely understood is *libel and slander laws*. In the US, with our high powered free speech regime, it is nearly impossible to win such lawsuits, and even if you win you rarely get any money; they are famously useless. That is why every smart plaintiff in a libel case tries to sue in the UK instead of in the US -- the UK courts have incomparably more leeway to blast people for libel and slander.

Yep... Libel suits in the US is more about trying to drown the defendant in legal fees in order to coerce a retraction and/or a way to return fire in an attempt to influence public opinion in high profile disputes.

 

[Ayin]

For clarification, are you saying that Jewish people are a race?

I'm just gonna steal from Zankou here to save time.

Anti-Semitism is trickier because you will rarely see anybody criticize Jewish religion -- 99 times out of 100, it's not Judaism that people are taking issue with, it's Jews. And this is where our French comedian got slammed, by inventing and performing the "Quenelle," which is of course a modified nazi salute.

 

[emax]

It doesn't matter that the Holocaust was an actual crime because some people will disagree with you that it took place or that millions were killed. They should have the right to disagree without fear of government coming down on them.

If you disagree then this intolerance for a controversial POV should be extended to other historical events. It will get to the point where people not be able to free discuss the merits and shortcomings of major historical events for fear of government.

It would be better if they have the right to disagree but the evidence for the Holocaust is so concrete and irrefutable that if someone says it did not happen then it's damn clear their motives are particularly dangerous. Whereas someone can criticize any religion in Europe simply because they dislike it. You cannot really prove that a religion is above criticism the way you can show proof the Holocaust happened.

I still think having even Holocaust denial legal in Europe would be better, though probably not realistic at this point, but it is still an extreme apples and oranges comparison if you are talking about Holocaust denial vs talking about a major religion with anything other than glowing praise.

And why should we expect Islam to have a completely equal footing with Christianity and Judaism anyway? I mean, often it is given equal footing and often Muslims are treated as a special class but even if it is not always the case, why should it be expected that every religion in Europe be given equal respect by the people of these nations? Can we name any non Western nation, at all, anywhere, where every religion and belief system is given equal amounts of respect by the people who live there?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I seem to recall an issue at a place I worked when releasing a record in Germany by a band called Genocide SS (which stood for Super Stars). If the album said "SS" they would/could not take it but if it said Genocide Super Stars it was ok.

 

[CELS]

At least with Germany itself, on the other hand, I can understand why they'd make a special exception for nazism and Holocaust denial; there's a unique urgency there. In other European nations, it seems like it helps legitimize something that deserves open contempt rather than suppression by state action.

Yes, I think a lot of people underestimate the constant threat of neo-nazis in Europe, especially Germany.

The one really disappointing area for free speech in the US is that our government is allowed to dick around with and influence American press organizations to a surprising degree. Europe has us beat in that department.

Could you elaborate?

 

[MicroBrew]

It would be better if they have the right to disagree but the evidence for the Holocaust is so concrete and irrefutable that if someone says it did not happen then it's damn clear their motives are particularly dangerous. Whereas someone can criticize any religion in Europe simply because they dislike it. You cannot really prove that a religion is above criticism the way you can show proof the Holocaust happened.

I still think having even Holocaust denial legal in Europe would be better, though probably not realistic at this point, but it is still an extreme apples and oranges comparison if you are talking about Holocaust denial vs talking about a major religion with anything other than glowing praise.

And why should we expect Islam to have a completely equal footing with Christianity and Judaism anyway? I mean, often it is given equal footing and often Muslims are treated as a special class but even if it is not always the case, why should it be expected that every religion in Europe be given equal respect by the people of these nations? Can we name any non Western nation, at all, anywhere, where every religion and belief system is given equal amounts of respect by the people who live there?

Look I agree the evidence is irrefutable BUT it is dangerous to say any historical fact can not be challenged or denied.

There are a lot of other genocides and highly charged historical events out there, so we should in fairness extend Denial Laws to them also.

The whole concept of believing that a historical event is beyond reproach and absolutely can not be disagreed with and or challenged is just frightening . It may even be that new evidence is unearthed supporting the critics but no one will ever hear about it because of such stifling laws.

 

[LatFlare]

Yep totally agree. People don't realise that freedom of expression means exactly that - freedom. People aren't always going to have nice things to say. If we're only free to say things within a certain bounds then we are not free are we.

Here's an article that was written here yesterday on the same topic. Background: the govt wanted to amend a law prohibiting people from saying things that humiliate or offend on the basis of race, ethnicity, etc (exactly what Charlie Hebdo does with their offensive cartoons) and there was a huge backlash.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/were-...speech--when-it-suits-us-20150113-12myyx.html

Nevertheless, the very Australians who are most likely to be out on the streets today with their "Je suis Charlie" placards made it clear less than a year ago that in their view, at least so far as race is concerned, publications should not be free to give offence or to insult.

 

[mantronix]

I'm just gonna steal from Zankou here to save time.

Ok got you, so Jews are not a race, but practitioners of Judaism.


ETA: In your opinion, what makes people hate Jews so much? And also what is the big deal? People shit on Christians and even different subsets of Christianity. Are we in agreement that bashing Jews does not equal anti-Semitism?

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

For clarification, are you saying that Jewish people are a race?

The Jews are definitively a sub-race of the broader caucasoid race.

There are diseases almost exclusive to Jewish people, there are Y-chromsome lines associated exclusively with the Cohen lines, and they all share genetic similarity in spite of coming from multiple countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews

I thought this was widely known and recognized?

This is why it makes sense to speak of being a "secular Jew". A Jew is a designation of a people. Judaism is a religion, but being Jewish is an ethno-tribal/sub-racial identity.

 

[Ayin]

Ok got you, so Jews are not a race, but practitioners of Judaism.


ETA: In your opinion, what makes people hate Jews so much? And also what is the big deal? People shit on Christians and even different subsets of Christianity. Are we in agreement that bashing Jews does not equal anti-Semitism?

Bashing Judaism does not=hating people, saying 'Jews are greedy' is stereotyping people. The issue is that we use the same word to describe both an ethnic group and the followers of a faith, which although it is understandable does create a great deal of confusion.



As to why the hate for Jews? I have no idea. I grew up in Rural Canada with my best friends being a white blonde dutch kid and a brown Jehovah's Witness. I had no idea that Jews had been historically disliked by large groups until I learned it in a classroom. I didn't grow up with a family teaching me 'hate this' or using any kind of insulting slang.

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

Generally they are pretty strong on free speech, but there are two glaring exceptions: They have relatively strong laws against inciting 'racial hatred,' and some of them forbid Holocaust denial as a specific form of this.

There are complicated debates about both of these items. Holocaust denial laws, for example, make it seem like the gov't is hiding the truth, and legitimizes portraying Holocaust denial as a martyr cause. Whereas the American approach -- just point out that the denier is a complete piece of shit -- doesn't give them the honor of feeling a martyr.

Laws against inciting racial hatred are enforced, but by and large courts allow you to criticize the *beliefs* of any particular group, as long as you don't slam them on *racial* grounds. Michel Houellebecq, the French novelist, was prosecuted on a charge of inciting racial hatred because he called Islam the "stupidest of all religions." He was acquitted because his comments were explicitly directed at the *stupidity of a religion*, which can hardly be construed as racial hatred.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2260922.stm

" Michel Houellebecq told a Paris court that his words had been twisted. "I have never displayed the least contempt for Muslims," he said, but added, "I have as much contempt as ever for Islam". "

Anti-Semitism is trickier because you will rarely see anybody criticize Jewish religion -- 99 times out of 100, it's not Judaism that people are taking issue with, it's Jews. And this is where our French comedian got slammed, by inventing and performing the "Quenelle," which is of course a modified nazi salute.

In the US, you are free to be a neo-nazi, but not so in Europe. They are extremely intolerant of nazi speech, under the theory that it is a type of racist hatred.

Legitimately speaking: Precisely how is the "quenelle" a modified Nazi salute?

The quenelle is done:

With the left hand.

With the left hand across the upper arm (or lower arm as there are 'quenelle shirts').

With the hand facing towards the arm.

The Roman salute is done:

With the right hand.

With arm extended at least at a 45 degree angle.

With the hand held palm down.

As with the Holocaust thing: I can understand why some people are upset in this, but why should factual claims ever be protected by the force of the government? If the evidence (and it is!) is so strong that the Holocaust is real, why must the state be brought in to protect that perspective?

In a country where Stalinist thinkers openly advocated for Stalinism, such as France (see: Sartre and others), which killed 5 times more people than Hitler killed Jews, and 3 more than he killed of all innocents, why is that a permissible political position?