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

[Antonio the Sixth]

FF

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, as much as I hate Dieudonné, I have to admit his post is too nonsensical to qualify as an apology of terrorism. He'll probably be acquitted (if he's even indicted). Still, I'm glad he got locked up for a while, to teach him a little lesson.

And yeah, I support a zero-tolerance policy for those who outright express support for terrorism. It's time to fight back.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, as much as I hate Dieudonné, I have to admit his post is too nonsensical to qualify as an apology of terrorism. He'll probably be acquitted (if he's even indicted). Still, I'm glad he got locked up for a while, to teach him a little lesson.

And yeah, I support a zero-tolerance policy for those who outright express support for terrorism. It's time to fight back.

Coming from the government which fought tooth and nail to hold down the Algerians and the Vietnamese and effectively lords over 10 or so African countries to this day?

I had no idea Hollande was responsible for the Algeria and Indochina Wars. Thanks for enlightening me.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, as much as I hate Dieudonné, I have to admit his post is too nonsensical to qualify as an apology of terrorism. He'll probably be acquitted (if he's even indicted). Still, I'm glad he got locked up for a while, to teach him a little lesson.

And yeah, I support a zero-tolerance policy for those who outright express support for terrorism. It's time to fight back.

The last thing anyone should want after the Charlie Hebdo attacks is for violent force to be able to "teach a little lesson" when it comes to what is acceptable speech.

I have nothing against restrictions of freedom of speech when it goes against racism and bigotry. Neither does Charlie Hebdo. For the record, they even support banning the FN (which I don't).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ah, Libertarians...

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The 1st Amendment does not contain an explicit statement limiting its effectiveness, its language is much broader ("Congress shall make no law"). All the limits that have been found to apply to it were constructions by the SCOTUS.