Dieudonne M'bala M'bala arrested for voicing support for Kosher market gunman

[warandwar]

Hate speech is illegal in France. I am glad it's not that way here in the US, but it seems silly to complain. And Dieudonne is a repeat offender when it comes to advocating violence against the Jewish minority. He's getting what he deserves.

And comparing this to the cartoons is silly. It's not hate speech to violate the tenets of a religion and mock their prophet. It is hate speech to advocate violence against the people in that group. That goes for Muslims and Jews.

^ This. I don't understand why people think that advocating violence should be legal. Mocking a guy who is considered a prophet by some is obviously very different from expressing support for killing people because of their religion. Jews in France (and in pretty much all of Western Europe) are already threatened because of anti-Semitism by Muslims, we'd better not legalize that.

Credit where credit due, I think that Manuel Valls' government has made a lot of effort to secure Jewish community and to counter terrorism.

The Supreme Court in the U.S. made the distinction between advocating violence and advocating imminent violence in Brandenberg v. Ohio. I don't know the law in France, but it seems completely reasonable to have the distinction from saying "I want to kill all of you" and "I want to kill all of you with the 10 guns in my car".

[warandwar]

Hate speech is illegal in France. I am glad it's not that way here in the US, but it seems silly to complain. And Dieudonne is a repeat offender when it comes to advocating violence against the Jewish minority. He's getting what he deserves.

And comparing this to the cartoons is silly. It's not hate speech to violate the tenets of a religion and mock their prophet. It is hate speech to advocate violence against the people in that group. That goes for Muslims and Jews.

^ This. I don't understand why people think that advocating violence should be legal. Mocking a guy who is considered a prophet by some is obviously very different from expressing support for killing people because of their religion. Jews in France (and in pretty much all of Western Europe) are already threatened because of anti-Semitism by Muslims, we'd better not legalize that.

Credit where credit due, I think that Manuel Valls' government has made a lot of effort to secure Jewish community and to counter terrorism.

The Supreme Court in the U.S. made the distinction between advocating violence and advocating imminent violence in Brandenberg v. Ohio. I don't know the law in France, but it seems completely reasonable to have the distinction from saying "I want to kill all of you" and "I want to kill all of you with the 10 guns in my car".

And that seems like a good, logical distinction in this country, where we have to thread the needle between respecting the first amendment and protecting people.

In France, where they don't have a first amendment, it seems crystal clear why Charlie Hebro's mockery of the prophet Islam is allowed while M'bala's celebration of the mass murder of Jews isn't.

I don't know, Article 11 of the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen ensures freedom of speech. It's just the interpretation of it that's changed. Why the interpretation of illegal speech differs so much between France and the U.S. isn't "crystal clear" to me. I'd be interested to know more about this.

[warandwar]

The judgement will happen tomorrow fyi.

To those who wonder why antisemitism and Islamophobia may be treated differently, I think France realized something we would prefer not to happen, and that is the following:

During the last years, victims of anti-semitism in France:
2012: Attack on a Jewish school in Toulouse: 4 victims
2014: Attack on the Jewish museum in Brussels (but the perpetrator was a French citizen): 4 victims
2015: Attack on a Jewish supermarket in Paris: 4 victims

Victims of Islamophobia: 0

[ur=http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/IslamophobiaFrance2.pngl]No[/url]

Even if what you were saying was true, which it isn't, you can't measure hatred by a body count! By your logic, you should be against hate speech only after it's resulted in multiple deaths. If you're inciting imminent violence, no matter against who, it should be illegal.

[warandwar]

Even if what you were saying was true, which it isn't,

It is. By victims, I meant people killed.

We all wish a world where everyone loves each other, but a government has limited means: it cannot prosecute everyone who says something insulting on social medias, and it cannot put soldiers in front of every school and every place of worship.
When prioritizing its actions, it makes sense to prioritize things that lead to real murder and terror attacks compared to thing that lead to verbal insults or damages on buildings (even though these things are bad as well).

I'm sure if you ask muslim immigrants in France, they'll point to plenty of incidents related to Islamophobia. Les émeutes de 2005 dans les banlieus, for example, arose partly from anger in the immigrant community over their mistreatment by police. People died at the start of those, so maybe that counts for you.

By saying that anti-Semitism is more dangerous than Islamophobia, you make it seem like these concerns aren't as important. I'm sure plenty of people agree with that. But if that is the French government's position, it will do nothing to help the French Islamic community feel less marginalized and mistreated. 

[warandwar]

Hate speech is illegal in France. I am glad it's not that way here in the US, but it seems silly to complain. And Dieudonne is a repeat offender when it comes to advocating violence against the Jewish minority. He's getting what he deserves.

And comparing this to the cartoons is silly. It's not hate speech to violate the tenets of a religion and mock their prophet. It is hate speech to advocate violence against the people in that group. That goes for Muslims and Jews.

^ This. I don't understand why people think that advocating violence should be legal. Mocking a guy who is considered a prophet by some is obviously very different from expressing support for killing people because of their religion. Jews in France (and in pretty much all of Western Europe) are already threatened because of anti-Semitism by Muslims, we'd better not legalize that.

Credit where credit due, I think that Manuel Valls' government has made a lot of effort to secure Jewish community and to counter terrorism.

The Supreme Court in the U.S. made the distinction between advocating violence and advocating imminent violence in Brandenberg v. Ohio. I don't know the law in France, but it seems completely reasonable to have the distinction from saying "I want to kill all of you" and "I want to kill all of you with the 10 guns in my car".

And that seems like a good, logical distinction in this country, where we have to thread the needle between respecting the first amendment and protecting people.

In France, where they don't have a first amendment, it seems crystal clear why Charlie Hebro's mockery of the prophet Islam is allowed while M'bala's celebration of the mass murder of Jews isn't.

I don't know, Article 11 of the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen ensures freedom of speech. It's just the interpretation of it that's changed. Why the interpretation of illegal speech differs so much between France and the U.S. isn't "crystal clear" to me. I'd be interested to know more about this.

The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.

Yeah, exactly. it ensures freedom of speech, except in certain cases. The 1st amendment does the same thing (no slander, libel, incitement, fire in a crowded theater stuff).

[warandwar]

Yeah, I'm aware of that. What I was trying to say is is that in both countries, there's an enshrined principle of free speech, barring what they define as harmful. This interpretation of harmful speech is what differs and I'd be interested to know why.