American Thinker:
By Michael Curtis
On September 2, 2020 a trial, postponed because of COVID-19, opened in Paris concerning those alleged to have been involved in the deadly attack in 2015 on Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical weekly magazine. Besides recounting the gruesome account of the details of terrorist activity, the trial implicitly invokes the conflict in France between freedom of speech and freedom of thought and religion and hate speech in the context of terrorist activity that has caused deaths of innocent people. Freedom of conscience like freedom of speech is protected by the 1789 Declaration of Human and Civil Rights and by the Constitution. In France, as in all democratic countries, free communication of ideas and opinions is vital. However, the law also prohibits hate speech, and laws protect individuals and groups from being defamed or insulted concerning identification with ethnic, national, racial, religious, sexual, gender orientations. Inherent in the present French issue is whether blasphemy, specifically against Islam, is a crime.
Accusation of blasphemy was the alleged basis for terrorist activity in France. In September 2005, the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten published twelve satirical cartoons about Islam. The one considered most offensive by Muslims was the cartoon showing the prophet Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. The French magazine Charlie Hebdo, C.H., in a special issue republished the cartoons on February 9, 2006. As a result, criminal proceedings for insulting the prophet on grounds of religion were brought against the chief editor, Philip Val, but he was acquitted in a trial in March 2007. C.H. published other satirical cartoons of Mohammed in September 2012. more here
don’t target the mfkng dindus, maricon/macron
A Constitution that doesn’t protect the peoples right to be armed is no Constitution at all.
“… freedom of speech is protected by the 1789 Declaration of Human and Civil Rights and by the Constitution. In France, as in all democratic countries, free communication of ideas and opinions is vital. However, the law also prohibits hate speech …”
You cannot have “freedom of speech” AND “prohibited speech.”
You can have one or the other – NOT both.
This is the same dysfunctional lie that we tell ourselves, though, in all fairness, it appears that the frogs invented it – the dichotomy, not the lie.
In Russia, under the Czars, the Death Penalty was forbidden.
But if a prisoner struck a guard he was immediately put to death.
And for other crimes a prisoner could be given up to 15,000 lashes (fat chance of surviving that).
Communist China outlawed the death penalty, but starved upwards of 80 Million Chinks to death. Funny how that works.
When countries and nations take on these confused and self-contradictory laws they’re usually headed for the “dust bin of History.”
There’s a reason France is the shit-hole it has become – it was not always thus.
izlamo delenda est …
Sounds right.
“You cannot have “freedom of speech” AND “prohibited speech.”” -Tim
Oh, but you can! The world is now replete with governments trying to have exactly that, including us.
Human beings do not know how to run ‘governments.’
Proof that
the idiotic concept of
HATE CRIME
is nothing but a scheme to destroy
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS