This weekend I wrote a column for the Washington Post on the crackdown of free speech in France. The column suggested that, if the French really wanted to honor the dead at Charlie Hebdo, they would rescind the laws used to hound them and threaten them with criminal prosecution for years. (Indeed, at least one surviving journalist expressed contempt for those who now support free speech but remained silent in the face of past efforts to shut down the magazine). Now, however, news reports indicate that the French government is doubling down on criminalizing speech in the name of free speech after the massacre. France has reportedly made dozens of arrests of people who glorify terrorism and engage in hateful or antiSemitic speech.
Prosecutors have gone out of their way to make it known that they are prosecuting people for speech — a remarkably ironic twist since the victims were prosecuted for the very same thing and died defending free speech against such private or governmental speech codes. Some 54 people have been arrested since the Paris terror attacks. The French justice department has encouraged more arrests for speech violations.
Notably, one of those detained was mentioned in my column, the comedian Dieudonne, who has been prosecuted for anti-Semitic jokes. For earlier posts and columns on Dieudonne, click here and here and here. We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech and non-discrimination laws. We have seen comedians targets with such court orders under this expanding and worrisome trend. (here and here).
The crackdown in France shows that this is really not about free speech despite the rally in Paris. The West seems to be falling out of faith with free speech, which is now something to be prosecuted rather than protected. Of course, the prosecutions will do little to change minds and will only make the West appear hypocritical and arbitrary. Notably, the arrests this week include four minors. The government is also ramping greater surveillance and searches. So, to recap, the French government just rallied millions for liberty this weekend and then used the attacks to further deny free speech and privacy rights.
In the case of Dieudonne, he ran afoul of the laws by posing a Facebook statement that he felt like “Charlie Coulibaly” — merging the names of Charlie Hebdo and Amedy Coulibaly, the gunman who seized a kosher market and killed four hostages. It was later taken down. He later wrote to the Interior Minister that “Whenever I speak, you do not try to understand what I’m trying to say, you do not want to listen to me. You are looking for a pretext to forbid me. You consider me like Amedy Coulibaly when I am not any different from Charlie.”
“Society decides what Rights you will have, and what rights they will NOT grant…”
Justa,
Simply brilliant! You are a government’s dream. Then you won’t have a problem when the Bill of Rights is repealed. And of course you’ll joyfully accept having your passport revoked and lose your citizenship for speaking negatively about the United States.
Laws, rights, and speech.
There are cases when speech itself is an action beyond mere words. We’ve seen many examples.
Should we have a law forbidding shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater? No, but if that acted as a cause of harm he should be held responsible.
No harm, no foul. Attempting to get the crowd to charge and getting no followers… Free Speech.
We might try to make law protecting children from speech their parents deem inappropriate.
PC … Protect Children
We adults know and use the earthy versions of body parts. Even Aunt Emma knows when to blush.
It is The Adult Conspiracy to Protect their Children.
Dieudonné blends his humor into the pseudo-history of negationism. Negationist claims have been clearly disproven and the only reason to cling to them is anti-semitism. Freedom of speech does have limits and it is the job of a society to define what they are. Talking about freedom of speech as if there is no context is purely theoretical. The French have taken a stand on this and drawn certain lines in the sand. An American neo-nazi can parade around with swastikas in the US. In France this is illegal. The debate around this difference is productive. But the comments in this article are superficial and confused.
mel bernstine wrote: “An American neo-nazi can parade around with swastikas in the US. In France this is illegal.”
I note that France ranks better than the U.S. in justagurlinseattle’s World Press Freedom Index.
mel bernstine wrote: “the comments in this article are superficial and confused.”
You are free to share your opinion. Try to straighten us out.
Olicou….
as an American, I feel MORE Free when in Europe…
So, I understand exactly what you are saying…..
davidm2575: It’s funny, you use the wording of the constitution of the countries to prove your points, but this is not the basis of empirical observations. You can have the best constitution in the world (you don’t) and still have less liberty.
Personally, when I come to the US, I know I am watching my ass in front of the authorities a lot more than in Canada, Japan or the USA. Border agents and policemen are always ready to shoot you. I am watching what I say because self-censorship is higher than most countries I know.
I feel more free in other countries of the developped world.
olicou and JAG – you are free NOT to visit the USA. Just sayin’.
olicou wrote: “You can have the best constitution in the world (you don’t) and still have less liberty. … I feel more free in other countries of the developped world.”
I grant you this point, that having a good Constitution does not guarantee liberty. One must keep it. Society must be faithful to that Constitution. Nevertheless, “feeling” free is not an objective measure of freedom. Where is a serial murderer going to feel more free? In the USA where law enforcement officers and citizens are armed, or in the UK? Where is a Muslim Jihadist going to “feel” more free? In the USA or in Yemen? People feel more free in countries where the government shares their ideology.
Terror event in Belgium. Now I suppose they are on board for the ground war in Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Syria et al. Germans will probably get attacked by terrorists tomorrow.
JAG, hear hear! You are completely sympatico with me on the subject of these elusive “rights”. Nothing more than a hairy fairy belief. There are no natural rights. Rights in theory alone amount to nothing. Rights are not concrete until made into law.
Oh, and in case you want to blame Obama for Americas poor Ranking
on Press Freedom…
in 2007, The USA was Ranked 48th
http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/index_2007_en.pdf
in 2005 the USA Ranked 44th ……
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/press_freedom-2005.htm
David,
The USA Ranks 46th in Press Freedom….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php
USA- 46th
France- 39th
UK- 33rd
Canada- 18th
Finland comes in 1st….
Netherlands ranks- 2nd…
Norway- 3rd……
Sweden-10th
and juist so you can get an idea of these rankings….
Romania is 45th
Haiti – 47th
Niger- 48th
Italy- 49th
You just explained WHY this Freedom is NOT absolute….
Child Porn, is rightfully NOT Protected Speech…. along with a few others there….
YET, You wrote that as PROOF that the USA has more Freedom of the Press, that is laughable……
—————————
Methodology-
The report is based partly on a questionnaire[3] sent to partner organizations of Reporters Without Borders (18 freedom of expression non-governmental organizations located in all five continents) and its 150 correspondents around the world, as well as to journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists.[2] The questionnaire asks questions about pluralism, media independence, environment and self-censorship, legislative framework, transparency, and infrastructure. The questionnaire takes account of the legal framework for the media (including penalties for press offences, the existence of a state monopoly for certain kinds of media and how the media are regulated) and the level of independence of the public media. It also reflects violations of the free flow of information on the Internet. Violence against journalists, netizens, and media assistants, including abuses attributable to the state, armed militias, clandestine organizations, and pressure groups, are monitored by RSF staff during the year and are also part of the final score.
A smaller score corresponds to greater freedom of the press.
justagurlinseattle wrote: “The USA Ranks 46th in Press Freedom….”
The big problem here is your ruler measuring press freedom. Did you even read the questionnaire? Knowing the study is based upon a questionnaire is a big enough red flag, but even without reading it, one can surmise a big problem when they put Canada ahead of the USA. Reading the questionnaire itself shows how useless their index is. It only measures their own notion of what freedom of the press means.
Following is a link to the questionnaire:
http://rsf.org/index/qEN.html
Natural Rights… God Given Rights, these sound so Romantic…
They are just poems… They sound good… Create that warm and fuzzy feeling of Patriotism….
But… Fact is.. If Rights were so Natural or God Given, then Black people
would have had these EQUAL Rights, LONG before they did….
Women would have been able to vote, the first time a man did….
Gay people would NOT have to fight, just for the right to marry who they love…
The Irony is that the very same people who believe that Rights are Natural or God Given, are the very same people who keep trying to block Gay people
from being able to marry….
If those Rights were so natural, people would NOT be able to BLOCK these Rights….. March against other peoples rights, Vote against other peoples rights and Freedom….
Society decides what Rights you will have, and what rights they will NOT grant…
justagurlinseattle wrote: “If Rights were so Natural or God Given, then Black people would have had these EQUAL Rights, LONG before they did….
Women would have been able to vote, the first time a man did….
Gay people would NOT have to fight, just for the right to marry who they love…”
Men can easily create laws which violate natural law. We call this tyranny. The reason for identifying natural law is to understand when the laws of men are in accordance with natural law and when they are not. When the laws of men are in accordance with natural law, then civil harmony results. All wars against government happen because the laws of government violate natural laws.
There is a problem here with your list of rights. Voting is not a natural right. Who is allowed to vote is entirely up to whatever government and society agree upon. Being allowed to pervert sexual relations is not a natural right either. Conflating marriage, the primary purpose of which hinges upon reproduction and creating a family unit for the raising of one’s offspring, with same sex unions only serves as a destructive force to abolish marriage. You should try at least to understand the concept of natural rights before flying off the handle and trying to squeeze modern propaganda into a natural rights theme.
justagurlinseattle wrote: “The Irony is that the very same people who believe that Rights are Natural or God Given, are the very same people who keep trying to block Gay people from being able to marry….”
Exactly right. Gay people are hijacking marriage the same way they hijacked the word “gay” in the English language. Gay use to have a nice meaning, but now the word gay is completely perverted and means something entirely different. When these sexual activists get finished with marriage, the word and institution of marriage will be completely destroyed. The concept of male and female will lose their distinction. Gender diversity will be dead.
justagurlinseattle wrote: “If those Rights were so natural, people would NOT be able to BLOCK these Rights….. March against other peoples rights, Vote against other peoples rights and Freedom….”
Using speech to compel others about their opinion is a natural right. Therefore, good government should allow it. You seem to want everyone to accept your opinion without discussion. That is how tyrants operate.
justagurlinseattle wrote: “Society decides what Rights you will have, and what rights they will NOT grant…”
And when society steps on the natural rights of others in society, no matter how small a minority they are, expect civil unrest.
A wise society will seek out to discover and articulate civil laws that conform to natural law, the same way a good scientist does concerning the physical world. Those societies that blunder ahead without any thought to the natural order of things will constantly encounter civil unrest and wars.
Zack, My old man would say “Buck up, buttercup” when one of his kids whined and played victim.
Does anyone here know who the president of the Saddam Hussein Fan Club is? Is it a secret club? Or, are the member proud of their allegiance? These comments about Saddam are incredible. I’m bookmarking this thread.
Olicou,
I will sincerely echo previous sentiments then and suggest another location than the United States; after all, if you need to be persuaded to come then we clearly do not need you.
davidm2575:
The lack of development of Latin America is actually a good point. There might be an effect from the series of dictators that they had, which were funded because of the Monroe Doctrice. The climate might also play into the issue for Central America.
However, Canada, Australia and NZ has attained similar level of development than USA.
Olly, fair enough. The only thing I disagree with is this concept of “island for liberty”. By island, you mean that you are surrounded by an ocean of absence of liberty? Does it include Canada, your closest neighboor? By many measures (freedom of press, number of incarcerations, right to marry who you want, …), Canada is more free than the US.
olicou wrote: “By many measures (freedom of press, number of incarcerations, right to marry who you want, …), Canada is more free than the US.”
Are you kidding me? Freedom of the press in Canada? They have a pretend free speech concept there much like Turkey does. They talk the talk but do not walk the walk. Way back in 1982, they passed a Constitution Act that tried to bolster the concept, but it still remains that government can restrict speech there pretty much any way that they want to. They just have to show their restriction to be reasonable and justified.
From the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights
and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by
law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
In other words, you have these rights unless we decide certain laws are necessary to curtail that right.
See:
http://ualawccsprod.srv.ualberta.ca/ccs/index.php/eh/518-freedom-of-expression
“While freedom of expression is a fundamental freedom, it is not absolute, but is subject to such “reasonable limits” as are “demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society,” pursuant to section 1 of the Charter (see balancing rights). Limitations on freedom of expression, such as obscenity and child pornography laws, hate propaganda laws, and the law of defamation, have been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada as “reasonable limits” upon free expression.”
In Canada, the Supreme Court ruled the Bible to be hate speech, they have arrested several simply for writing letters to the newspaper, they have arrested people simply for speaking what’s on their mind. No, Canada is not a bastion of freedom of the press.
The more you write, the more you prove how unique and exceptional the U.S. Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution are.
Olicou,
I never said America’s founding fathers invented the idea of equality or liberty or inalienable rights. What they did however is invent the form of government ‘most likely’ to secure those principles for future generations. There is a formula, a recipe for American-style constitutional republicanism and the ingredients have existed since the dawn of man. The chain of events, captured in the grievances listed by Jefferson, were fundamentally not unique to the American colonies either. They have manifested themselves in the various forms of oppressive regimes throughout history and will do so for eternity. There are fundamental laws of human nature that have to be accounted for and the United States form of government is designed specifically to account for that human nature.
When you laundry-list the failures of the American regime you completely ignore the entire complexity of cultural transformation. Declaring that from this day forward we stand for certain principles is only the first step in that transformation. The principles have to be sold to a culture that already has deeply-held paradigms regarding equality and natural rights. Once you get buy-in then the hard work begins in turning your culture from what it was into what you want it to be. The United States, as statically measured by our founding principles, will never be a complete success. But what distinguishes us the most (at least for those that believe in the original intent) is if we trust our formula for a constitutional republic, then our nation will continue to be that island for liberty.
The success of the USA is not coming from its values, but because it was a resourceful and emptied continent.
You could make a plausible argument that the open frontier made it easier to establish institutions that enshrine liberty as the principle that guides the relationship b/w the citizen and the state. (Other principles have always guided relations among the people.) But the argument that natural resources are the sole source of US prosperity is simply ridiculous.
Consider resource-abundant Latin America. Or resource-poor Hong Kong.
davidm2575: Are you kidding me? You are telling me that banning a non-British citizen from flying to England is worst than creating a series of illegal jails in the world where nobody gets a fair trial? Worst than starting a war of aggression in Iraq on false pretenses?
I even know people that were jailed in high-security prison in the US for bringing a knife in their checked luggage. No trial… straight to jail for 3 days with murderers and rapists.
Reporter without border puts the USA freedom of speech below that of Romania and Papua New Guinea!
And, are you comparing the USA to TURKEY???
Olly, quite grandiloquent, but narcissistic speech. Obviously, not all countries have expressed their values as the writers of the constitution of the USA. But, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, et al didn’t invent these ideas and they are not alone in the world to have those.
Take the Corsican Republic in 1755. It was inspired by Rousseau and others. It included the right to vote for women, something american women won’t have until 1920. Black People had to wait until 1965 to have the absolute right to vote. And, what about slavery? The first line of the declaration really means that: that all “White-Anglo-Saxons-Men” are created equal.
Stop it with you historical blindness. USA was not the first, neither the last to introduce rights for people. It excluded indians, blacks and women until much later than many countries.
The success of the USA is not coming from its values, but because it was a resourceful and emptied continent.
olicou wrote: “Take the Corsican Republic in 1755. It was inspired by Rousseau and others. It included the right to vote for women, something american women won’t have until 1920.”
Yeah, and that right for Corsican women to vote was revoked 14 years later, wasn’t it?
You are mixing apples and oranges here. Voting is not an inalienable right. It is a privilege granted by government and determined according to however society wants to do it. There is nothing inherently wrong with a society restricting the right to vote to males, white males, landowners, or however the society wants to do it. There is nothing wrong with a government that doesn’t allow any voting, as long as that government is operating in accordance with the consent of the governed and respects the inalienable rights of the people.
olicou wrote: “The success of the USA is not coming from its values, but because it was a resourceful and emptied continent.”
You mean like the entire South American continent? Why the different paths for these two continents?
Olicou,
In each of those examples, how many of them were centered on these four self-evident truths?
1. that all men are created equal.
2. that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
3. that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
4. that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
There are many examples throughout history where an oppressed people have fought for and gained their independence, but what did they acknowledge as the legitimate form of government that most likely would prevent further oppression? Those self-evident truths justify the cause for independence AND the only legitimate form of the government to follow. It’s that connection that is at the core of America’s independence movement; it had never been done before and has not been done since. Abraham Lincoln expresses it beautifully in his “Fragment on the Constitution and Union”:
“All this is not the result of accident. It has a philosophical cause. Without the Constitution and the Union, we could not have attained the result; but even these, are not the primary cause of our great prosperity. There is something back of these, entwining itself more closely about the human heart. That something, is the principle of “Liberty to all”—the principle that clears the path for all—gives hope to all—and, by consequence, enterprise, and industry to all.
The expression of that principle, in our Declaration of Independence, was most happy, and fortunate. Without this, as well as with it, we could have declared our independence of Great Britain; but without it, we could not, I think, have secured our free government, and consequent prosperity. No oppressed, people will fight, and endure, as our fathers did, without the promise of something better, than a mere change of masters.
The assertion of that principle, at that time, was the word, “fitly spoken” which has proved an “apple of gold” to us. The Union, and the Constitution, are the picture of silver, subsequently framed around it. The picture was made, not to conceal, or destroy the apple; but to adorn, and preserve it. The picture was made for the apple—not the apple for the picture.
So let us act, that neither picture, or apple shall ever be blurred, or bruised or broken. That we may so act, we must study, and understand the points of danger.
Zack, The cure for BDS is to stop watching MSNBC, stop reading The Nation, Mother Jones, etc. and start reading and watching a variety of news sources, It’s not a sure cure by any means. But, it has worked for some. I am not hopeful for you.