Paris ban on Muslim street prayers comes into effect - Polidicks

Freedom of speech has to have its limits. It's sad, but it has to be, or else abuse comes from it and from abuse comes violence. [editline]17th September 2011[/editline] It's only a matter of time before a man who calls murder of jews gets jews murdered if he's not stopped.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32344100]Freedom of speech has to have its limits. It's sad, but it has to be, or else abuse comes from it and from abuse comes violence. [editline]17th September 2011[/editline] It's only a matter of time before a man who calls murder of jews gets jews murdered if he's not stopped.[/QUOTE] Apart from yelling fire in a crowded theater or similar things, I see no reason why freedom of speech should be limited at all.

[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;32344306]Apart from yelling fire in a crowded theater or similar things, I see no reason why freedom of speech should be limited at all.[/QUOTE] Because if you let people say shit they'll end doing shit as well. We already had very good examples of that, rather old (Hitler, Mussolini) or more recent (Jean Marie LePen, the previous leader of the National Front, kept giving heinous speeches to the people following him, which ended in an African immigrant getting beat up and threw from a bridge into the seine, where he drowned). They can still run for president while having a clearly xenophobic program (Lepen father and daughter basically both wanted to become president to close frontiers and make France "pure" by eliminating all sorts of strangers on the surface of the country), but there's still a few things they can't do, like calling death of a certain people, saying X is inferior compared to Y, denying things about WW2 (which LePen did, he even wrote a book about how the gas chambers never existed and got in Jail for it) and basically being heinous and inciting hatred toward a people in particular.

[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;32344306]Apart from yelling fire in a crowded theater or similar things, I see no reason why freedom of speech should be limited at all.[/QUOTE] It already is limited, don't act like it isn't.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32344031]So if I push your argument to the very edge Lankist we should be able to run totally naked in the street while holding a big sign with "I HATE JEWS BURN THEM ALL" written on it and no one could do jack shit about it because that's freedom of expression. And if we push the argument to a bit more rational place, people could be able to push around pedestrians because their religion or cult or whatever indicates they have to push random people in the street. This is ridiculous.[/QUOTE] well streaking is indecency, but if you've got your genitals covered up by something then yes, it's A-OKAY. The law cannot be used against you, and government cannot stop you from expressing yourself. otherwise Mel Gibson would be in prison. It's cool how you think it's A-OKAY for you to hate muslims but not for anyone to hate you. [editline]17th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;32344100]Freedom of speech has to have its limits[/QUOTE] It does, but not when it's a victimless crime. [editline]17th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;32344100]It's only a matter of time before a man who calls murder of jews gets jews murdered if he's not stopped.[/QUOTE] Despite their motto, the police's purpose is not to solve crimes before they happen. [editline]17th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;32344306]Apart from yelling fire in a crowded theater or similar things, I see no reason why freedom of speech should be limited at all.[/QUOTE] There are certain forms of speech that are restricted, but only in instances when someone has been directly victimized by the perpetrator. Being offended or feeling uncomfortable does not qualify someone for status as a victim.

Hate speech is considered as aggression. Not physical, but moral. It's also stopped for prevention purposes as well, even though the official reason is you just don't do moral aggression. [editline]18th September 2011[/editline] It's also not because the police isn't supposed to solve crimes before they happen that they have to close their eyes on a verbal threat directed towards anyone.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32345127]Hate speech is considered as aggression. Not physical, but moral. It's also stopped for prevention purposes as well, even though the official reason is you just don't do moral aggression. [editline]18th September 2011[/editline] It's also not because the police isn't supposed to solve crimes before they happen that they have to close their eyes on a verbal threat directed towards anyone.[/QUOTE] Free countries don't legislate morality. Free countries legislate rights. If we could ban moral offenses then homosexuality would be illegal and working on the sabbath would be punishable by death.

It's kinda the point of stopping people who drive too fast. You don't wait for them to crash their car and kill people to act, you consider driving too fast a crime and you stop them before someone dies. We're not legislating morality, we're legislating people who use verbal aggression. So far no one ever broke a leg by simply insulting someone, but it's still pretty fucking depressing to have someone yelling at you just because you're following a specific religion or have a different skin color. It's called moral harassment and "diffamation" (aka pretty much slander)

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32345235]It's kinda the point of stopping people who drive too fast. You don't wait for them to crash their car and kill people to act, you consider driving too fast a crime and you stop them before someone dies.[/QUOTE] Uhh driving too fast is reckless endangerment of pedestrians and other motorists. Furthermore the US federal government does NOT legislate maximum speeds. States can set whatever speed limits they want, or none at all, but they have to go by the Fed's guidelines for road safety if they want highway funding and transportation grants. It works the same with drinking ages. States don't need to have a drinking age (one of the Dakotas has a drinking age of 18 as opposed to the federally mandated 21, forget which). The Fed cannot force them to have any specific restrictions, only give or take grants as incentives.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32345264]Uhh driving too fast is reckless endangerment of pedestrians and other motorists. Furthermore the US federal government does NOT legislate maximum speeds. States can set whatever speed limits they want, or none at all, but they have to go by the Fed's guidelines for road safety if they want highway funding and transportation grants.[/QUOTE] France is not a federation, the government legislates a maximum speeds that is the same for the whole country. My point is, if you stop people for reckless ENDANGERMENT of other people, it means you stop them before they actually kill someone. Same thing for death threats and heinous speech.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32345235]It's kinda the point of stopping people who drive too fast. You don't wait for them to crash their car and kill people to act, you consider driving too fast a crime and you stop them before someone dies. We're not legislating morality, we're legislating people who use verbal aggression. So far no one ever broke a leg by simply insulting someone, but it's still pretty fucking depressing to have someone yelling at you just because you're following a specific religion or have a different skin color. It's called moral harassment and "diffamation" (aka pretty much slander)[/QUOTE] if you can't spell defamation, I am not going to trust your interpretation of defamation precedence. Furthermore, as I have already said, defamation and slander are NOT crimes, they are civil offenses. The government cannot put you in prison for slander, they can only arbitrate a dispute between parties in civil court. If you lose a defamation case, you are not considered a criminal.

I put diffamation between quotes for a reason, it's the french spelling. Didn't know the english one.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32345297]France is not a federation, the government legislates a maximum speeds that is the same for the whole country. My point is, if you stop people for reckless ENDANGERMENT of other people, it means you stop them before they actually kill someone. Same thing for death threats and heinous speech.[/QUOTE] Uhh no you don't punish someone for driving too fast as though you know they were going to kill someone, you punish someone for driving too fast because they were driving too fast. Speed crimes are misdemeanors that carry fines and, at maximum, a revocation of driver's license (which is not considered a right, but a privilege.) The reason government can punish you for driving like a dick is because driving is NOT a right. Speech IS a right, speech CANNOT be infringed upon when there is no direct victim. Furthermore, as I've already said, direct death threats ARE illegal. Indirect or vague hate speech is not, because you cannot call any specific individual to the stand. If I say "kill all white people," you can bring ANY white person to the stand to testify against me. You could pick a white person that hates mexicans if you wanted to, and their testimony would put me in jail whether I really committed a crime or not. That is a miscarriage of justice, and that is why we do not try individual thought-crimes committed against vague and enormous groups.

And in France defamation and slander are crimes. You might only get away with a few hours lost in the local police station + a fine or depending on the scale of defamation and its consequences (it has already led to suicide of the people concerned by the defamation) you might go to jail. In France if someone yells "Kill all white people" and a policeman hears him, he can arrest him for Heinous speech. It probably won't go far, just a warning at first, but if he goes on, it's a fine and probably a jail warning (dunno if these exist in the US but here you can get a prison sentence that will only be effective the next time you commit a crime)

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32345390]And in France defamation and slander are crimes. You might only get away with a few hours lost in the local police station + a fine or depending on the scale of defamation and its consequences (it has already led to suicide of the people concerned by the defamation) you might go to jail.[/QUOTE] And practicing Muslim prayer is restricted by geographical areas in france. I'm not arguing that france is free. I'm arguing the exact opposite. It is absolutely no surprise to me that france likes to infringe upon speech, what with their rampant xenophobia and all. Seriously lots of Americans hate Mexicans, but the shit you guys say about Muslims makes our shit seem petty. More petty than it already is, rather. And don't even get me started on how much you people hate gypsies.

Yeah about gypsies. I don't remember who said Muslims were hated and discriminated against to calm down extreme right wings. They aren't, Gypsies are. I still find that fucking disgusting but it's not really a matter of origin - the excuse isn't that they're expelled because they're Gypsies, the excuses is they're expelled because they're settling down on fields that aren't theirs. Most people don't hate Gypsies at all, they barely care, most of them even offer proper terrains for them to settle down for a while. It's just the government trying to lick boots of the European community and, with the upcoming elections, trying to get the extreme right wing with them to gather more votes and shit. [editline]18th September 2011[/editline] But yeah it's not specific to France, the US also kinda have a huge wall separating Mexico and the US with huge measures taken to spot and track illegal immigrants. [editline]18th September 2011[/editline] The real problem with Gypsies is, they're giving buttloads of reasons to the government and the national front to hate them. Everywhere they go, crimes often drastically augment, some of them are aggressive and steal shit from local merchants. If all of them were harmless they wouldn't get all that shitty attention. There's no reason to target them so much but if most of them stopped being so arrogant they probably would have a bit more sympathy from the police and the government.

But that's my point. You are in favor of laws against hate speech. When a gypsy says "fuck these cheese-eating surrender-monkeys," it's hate speech. When a french government official says "we need to get these dirty transient gypsies off our land", it's a political debate. It's only enforced upon the minority. No matter how right you think it is, the majority opinion will never agree to enforce laws on itself. All they do is restrict speech upon the minority. You can disenfranchise an entire ethnic group, but how the hell can you justify taking away their right to get pissed off about it when there's nobody telling the majority to quit fucking with gypsies? You can say "enforce the laws better," but if the majority of people hate one specific thing, they aren't going to effect that law upon themselves. That simply will never happen. All you've accomplished is further disenfranchising people who have already lost damn near everything they have, but now they're not even allowed to be angry about it. That's absurd, and it is incredibly counterproductive to the advancement of that ethnicity in your culture. You underestimate the capacity for positive change that comes with pure, unadulterated, organized rage. That's how most civil rights reform happens. Eventually you reach a breaking point. By restricting hate speech, you've taken that breaking point away from all of the people that need it. And the majority opinion has lost absolutely nothing in the process.

Don't blame that on us, as a matter of fact in every country there's a majority fucking with the minority. Deny it as much as you want, but it's the same in the united states. It's the same everywhere. The actual government is shit. Giving Muslims a place to pray in instead of staying outside is probably the best measure they were able to take for the past five years, I hope socialists get elected in 2012 because at least they have a damn program and some rational ideas about how to deal with Gypsies (which include actually helping them instead of telling them to fuck off and go die of poverty somewhere else). The funny thing is, Sarkozy has tried to imitate as much as possible Americans in every aspects of his politic, including the whole Gypsy thing.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32345479]But yeah it's not specific to France, the US also kinda have a huge wall separating Mexico and the US with huge measures taken to spot and track illegal immigrants.[/QUOTE] We don't have a wall. Idiots want to build a wall, but we don't have one. Additionally, no matter what bullshit gets shoved on latinos, we're perfectly allowed to do this here in the States: [img]http://favim.com/orig/201104/01/Favim.com-11711.jpg[/img] [editline]17th September 2011[/editline] you better think twice, america

[QUOTE=Lankist;32345897] When a gypsy says "fuck these cheese-eating surrender-monkeys," it's hate speech.[/QUOTE] Shoo, you filthy Scots, shoo.

It's forbidden in France, but it's also probably because we went from a harsh nazi period you didn't go through. Once again, cultural difference. Also I'm pretty sure the frontier between US and Mexico is guarded and forbidden to go through. [editline]18th September 2011[/editline] You know, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_%E2%80%93_United_States_barrier]That one[/url]

We went through a pretty extreme period of racial and religious persecution (Puritans, slavery, segregation, etc), periods of extreme political persecution (Japanese internment camps WWII, McCarthy-era Communist Witch-Hunts) and current sexual and racial persecution (Latinos, Arabs, Homosexuals,) and through all that we have never once effected any sort of system to stem any opinion from being expressed, no matter how distasteful. If they have the right to hate someone, everyone else has the right to defend them. We wish to protect our values and rights, and that cannot be achieved by disregarding the first or limiting the second. At a certain point you have so many protections that you are left with nothing worth protecting. [editline]17th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;32346187]It's forbidden in France, but it's also probably because we went from a harsh nazi period you didn't go through. Once again, cultural difference. Also I'm pretty sure the frontier between US and Mexico is guarded and forbidden to go through. [editline]18th September 2011[/editline] You know, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_%E2%80%93_United_States_barrier]That one[/url][/QUOTE] Haha, which is a joke to anyone who actually lives here. You said don't talk about france if you aren't from france. If you aren't a Latino living in America, you don't exactly have a grasp on the immigration struggle here. The border wall is a joke, what little sections that have been built were built primarily using illegal immigrant labor, and determined immigrants can break through in a matter of minutes. We have a stretch of land thousands of miles across. It is not guarded by anything more than a handful of racist hillbillies who shoot at brown people. You make the same mistake many white republicans make here. Never, ever underestimate the will, determination and strength of someone who [I]wants[/I] to be an American. A wall will not stop them. Guns will not stop them. To them, this is the land of opportunity, and whatever petty attempts you can use to try and stop them will result in nothing more than an embarrassing waste of funds and resources. Integration will happen whether it's allowed or not.

religion is a waste of fucking time anyways.

Except all the things you talked about were pretty much launched by the majority against the minority. We had to go through freaking nazi occupation, which not only included massive amounts of jew casualties, but also massive amount of french people being executed and deported for no other reason than being here. And it all started with some guy claiming we should surrender to Nazi Germany, and who eventually got reason by effectively taking over the country and giving it to Nazis while we had the ability to fight them. [editline]18th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=TheChantzGuy;32346290]religion is a waste of fucking time anyways.[/QUOTE] No it's not. I won't bother arguing with you.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32346310]Except all the things you talked about were pretty much launched by the majority against the minority. We had to go through freaking nazi occupation, which not only included massive amounts of jew casualties, but also massive amount of french people being executed and deported for no other reason than being here. And it all started with some guy claiming we should surrender to Nazi Germany, and who eventually got reason by effectively taking over the country and giving it to Nazis while we had the ability to fight them.[/QUOTE] The Minority is incredibly well protected here. Our government is designed to allow minority opinions to effect positive change, and it's happened countless times primarily because the government hasn't the means or the powers to stop it.

Well it sure is now, I'm not going against this, but back then you still freaking murdered them for no reasons. It stopped when people said enough. With the Vichy Government (nazi occupation), we had no choice, and had no idea where to stop. It somewhat ended up having a bigger impact on our culture than on yours, seeing how we can arrest someone for hate speech and mere discrimination.

[QUOTE=Conspiracy;32337877]Between two men, two women, a man and a woman; all three would be warned by the police.[/QUOTE] So instead of it just being shitty for one group of people it's shitty for everyone I see Qatar in a whole new light now thank you

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32346403]Well it sure is now, I'm not going against this, but back then you still freaking murdered them for no reasons. It stopped when people said enough. With the Vichy Government (nazi occupation), we had no choice, and had no idea where to stop. It somewhat ended up having a bigger impact on our culture than on yours, seeing how we can arrest someone for hate speech and mere discrimination.[/QUOTE] Which is in and of itself a fascist principle. We don't arrest people for being nazis here because that is a nazi tactic. We sure as hell don't [I]like[/I] them, but we don't imitate them.

Stop trying to shove your culture down his throat would you, if relationships have to stay private in his culture then kisses are considered indecency. People living here know that and are okay with it, it's only when someone comes from another place and doesn't make the effort of actually fitting the cultural variations here that it causes troubles. And yes, you have to accept the local culture, not force yourself in.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32346446]Stop trying to shove your culture down his throat would you, if relationships have to stay private in his culture then kisses are considered indecency. People living here know that and are okay with it, it's only when someone comes from another place and doesn't make the effort of actually fitting the cultural variations here that it causes troubles. And yes, you have to accept the local culture, not force yourself in.[/QUOTE] His culture is repressive, he's already admitted that. Now Conspiracy's argument is A. There's no way to change it (anytime soon) and B. It's progressive considering its neighbors. Let the dude speak for himself. He doesn't need a champion.