Bad news in France. P.S. This is how governments operate

[Mudhammam]

Looks like freedom of speech isn't as big of a deal to the French government as they seemed to express the past week and a half. But this is an incredibly opportune time to consolidate control over how people express themselves in speech and writing:

54 people were arrested in France as of Wednesday for “apologizing for terrorism” in the wake of the attack on the Charlie Hebdo office last week that left a dozen dead. French authorities also announced the country would crack down on what the Associated Press summarized as “hate speech, anti-Semitism and glorifying terrorism.”

The 54 arrested were rounded up for making or defending terrorist threats in the last week; some have already been sentenced under emergency guidelines.

One person hauled in was Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, a controversial French comedian who sympathized with one of the Paris gunmen in a Facebook post. “Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly,” he wrote, mixing Charlie Hebdo with the last name of the man who took hostage a Jewish deli. He has since deleted the post.

Dieudonné (his stage name) has been convicted of anti-Semitism under France’s harsh laws against anti-Semitic speech; his stage show was banned last year for Holocaust jokes. He gained international notoriety after he popularized a Nazi-like salute that was then made by French soccer player Nicolas Anelka.
Government spokesperson Stephane Le Foll said France was also considering Patriot Act-like measures, including wiretapping, to further combat terror plots — as well as urban projects to fight inequality, where it feels violence and hatred foments.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/france-cr...errorists/

[Chad32]

So people were arrested for sympathizing with the murderers? I'm a little broken on this. I suppose they have a right to say what they want, but they're also assholes and siding with free speech hating terrorists is not a good thing.

[Mudhammam]

Government can't nor should it try regulate which people are allowed to be dicks.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

'can't' I think informs the conclusion as to why government shouldn't be trying.

You can't legislate against thoughts, even though here in the UK the current Government is doing its utmost to try. Not unless you want thought crimes to be a thing.

It should, rather, be doing its utmost to facilitate the ability to criticise those dicks, though, and to call out those dicks.

[Minimalist]

All governments seem to have the same routine.

[FatAndFaithless]

The only speech worth protecting is the speech that people might not like or agree with.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

The only speech worth protecting is the speech that people might not like or agree with.

There is a contradiction, however, in governmental MOs and indeed the possible raison d'etre for a government.

On the one hand, the government's primary focus is the welfare of its citizens (or at least should be. Which is itself a contradiction, perhaps...), thus it should be preventing those that would harm this notion from operating, which in turn means it's preventing the welfare of its citizens.

FUCK.

and hence the discourse of politics is born.

[Dystopia]

This is common procedure in European countries. *Justfrenchpeoplestuff

[FatAndFaithless]

The only speech worth protecting is the speech that people might not like or agree with.

There is a contradiction, however, in governmental MOs and indeed the possible raison d'etre for a government.

On the one hand, the government's primary focus is the welfare of its citizens (or at least should be. Which is itself a contradiction, perhaps...), thus it should be preventing those that would harm this notion from operating, which in turn means it's preventing the welfare of its citizens.

FUCK.

and hence the discourse of politics is born.

It's a gray murky line to be sure, but in most cases I think it's pretty clear if someone is expressing support for an idea versus recommending a course of action (as weasely of a difference that may seem). Of course governments are about as tactful and precise as a gorilla holding a hand grenade, but I like to speak about free speech in the theoretical ideal.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

There is a contradiction, however, in governmental MOs and indeed the possible raison d'etre for a government.

On the one hand, the government's primary focus is the welfare of its citizens (or at least should be. Which is itself a contradiction, perhaps...), thus it should be preventing those that would harm this notion from operating, which in turn means it's preventing the welfare of its citizens.

FUCK.

and hence the discourse of politics is born.

It's a gray murky line to be sure, but in most cases I think it's pretty clear if someone is expressing support for an idea versus recommending a course of action (as weasely of a difference that may seem). Of course governments are about as tactful and precise as a gorilla holding a hand grenade, but I like to speak about free speech in the theoretical ideal.

Word.