Yet again - the French contradict their own principles. The rally
to protect open expression is a just cause, but they must be clear
and principled in how that is applied in society. In France, it is
illegal to deny holocaust - and here it's apparently illegal for a comedian
to express himself on Facebook for simply saying: “I feel like Charlie Coulibaly.”

So where is the line drawn?

This is an egregious contradiction that mirrors the absurdity of the French policy
banning the full-face veil.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/charlie-hebdo-french-comedian-detained-over-online-comments-1421229693

PARIS—French prosecutors Wednesday ordered stand-up comedian Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala to stand trial next month on criminal charges of being an apologist for terrorism, after he appeared to express solidarity with one of the gunmen who stunned France last week.

The case, which comes a week after the deadly attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, highlights the challenge of drawing a line between blasphemy—which French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said this week wasn’t and would never be prosecuted—and various forms of hate speech that are regarded as criminal offenses under French law.

Mr. M’Bala M’Bala, who goes by the stage name Dieudonné, was taken into police custody early Wednesday, following online comments in which he appeared to liken himself to Amedy Coulibaly —the shooter who killed a policewoman and four people at a kosher store in two separate incidents, claiming to have acted in coordination with two brothers who massacred 12 people in the newsroom of Charlie Hebdo.

Paris prosecutors said Dieudonné was questioned about comments he made after Sunday marches in France, during which an estimated four million people paid tribute to victims of the attacks, rallying under the free-speech banner of “I am Charlie,”

A comment posted on Dieudonné’s Facebook page, which his lawyer confirmed were written by the comedian, read: “I feel like Charlie Coulibaly.”

Paris prosecutors said Dieudonné’s comments could be regarded as a call in support of terrorist actions and fall under French laws criminalizing apologists for terrorism.

Dieudonné was released Wednesday evening after nearly a full day of questioning, according to his lawyer, Jacques Verdier.

“My client’s comments aren’t, by far, an endorsement of terrorism,” Mr. Verdier said, adding Dieudonné was “harassed by French authorities.”

By Wednesday afternoon, the line in which Mr. Dieudonné mentions Mr. Coulibaly—who was killed in a police raid at the kosher store—no longer appeared on the comedian’s Facebook page.

Instead, the page carried a comment in which the comedian says he supported the Charlie Hebdo victims and took part in the march to defend freedom of speech. “I only seek to make people laugh, laugh about death the same way death laughs about us,” the post reads.

For years, Dieudonné has tested the limits of free speech in France with comments that have been called hate speech and anti-Semitic by government officials, including France’s Prime Minister Manuel Valls.

Dieudonné has rejected the accusations, saying his attitude is no different from Charlie Hebdo’s.

Since last week, French authorities have moved to crack down on those who glorify the attacks amid fears they could encourage would-be terrorists to act.

Since the attacks, several people across France have been detained for condoning terrorism, with some already convicted. Kamal Belaidi was sentenced to a four-year jail term on Monday after overtly hailing the killing of the three police officers and shouting “Allahu akbar” to police officers at the scene of a car accident in the northern French town of Valenciennes, the local deputy prosecutor, Christophe Delattre, said Tuesday.

“We must act with a total severity on those who express racism, anti-Semitism or against Islam—as mosques were also targeted,” French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve told French radio, while Dieudonné was being questioned by police.

-->

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

(rire mon cul)

He's like the Sacha Baron Cohen of France. This maybe more bad press is good press for him than anything else.

All this nonsense will eventually reach a boiling point. I hope I'm wrong.

And the line is apparently drawn when the wrong type of French citizens (aka the not white, non-secular, non Judeo-Christian) say something heinous.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

was passed over 50 years ago with unanimous assent in the French legislature. Their strategy may be out of step with other Western countries, but their laws are lockstep with French norms regarding liberty and racial equality. Our outlook on the freedom of speech is more rooted in the protection of individual liberty. Hard to say which one is better.

> Our
>outlook on the freedom of speech is more rooted in the
>protection of individual liberty. Hard to say which one is
>better.

I went to school with a french girl and she told me it was shocking to be in a classroom with people with Yarmulkes, star of davids, Christian Crosses and Islamic attire.

It's always been strange to me that in pursuit of the same general principle that there practice would have that exact opposite outcome as you would have in the states (i.e., you have a right to wear all that stuff).


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

for jews and catholics so they can go to school separately.

mulsim specfic schools are NOT funded.

the rest it's too early to get into.

The US offers more protection to racist speech than France, but French laws aimed at racist speech are consistent with their interpretation of equality, which welcomes limits on individual liberty that protect the collective. This discussion of consistency with republican principles does not take into consideration whether the laws are effective nor whether other laws or the operation of these laws contradict the underlying principles.

...country's historical narrative.

France has experienced fascism in a way the United States can't really comprehend.

My sense is that as a country, it perceives society as susceptible to certain forms of speech, and that perception of vulnerability has woven itself into the political culture, so the laws in place are intended to stop it before it grows.

The United States (arguably) hasn't experienced the same kind of totalitarian political and social collapse France has.

So we're less suspicious of inflammatory speech, and feel that it's unhealthy to exclude it from the national dialog.

Individual rights are much more enshrined in America's culture and law than France's.

For better or worse.

From my perspective, Dieudonné is a piece of shit, but you don't censor him.

But I never had to live under the Vichy regime, so I don't know how fair it is to level criticism.

invasive state due to our existence as a colony. Racial equality was not really a strong component of the Constitution, and the 14th Amendment did not really help either. In addition to the horror of living under the Vichy regime, the fact that it even existed in the first place imparted a fair amount of shame, whether deserved or not. I just find it difficult to criticise when I haven't seen any country perfectly strike a balance.

What RTLMC did was criminal.

It takes a genocide for people to maybe reconsider the value of protecting ALL speech.

Of course there is a thin line between what RTLMC did and the fear and hate mongering of Fox News.

That someone is allowed to make that call is a bit scary as a person raised in the US...and seeing how it is playing out in France.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

>My sense is that as a country, it perceives society as
>susceptible to certain forms of speech, and that perception of
>vulnerability has woven itself into the political culture, so
>the laws in place are intended to stop it before it grows.
>

In your estimation, who should be the arbiter of what is and isn't allowed
when it comes to a free press and artistic community?

What are the principles and legal theories that should predominate?

but people who say that Charlie Abdo is xenophobic usually don't realize
that many of the artists at Abdo are leftist liberals who mock and lampoon
the far right (namely the Le Pen hard line nationalist) contingent with similar
visceral burn. They don't pull punches for any group.

That said - I do like the discussion many are having about what value
"punching down" has in a progressive society. That is, even though many
are valiantly running to defend freedom of expression and the right of a free press -
what also needs to be at discussion is how we can devalue hateful speech/art
that is intended to insult/harm. But the answer is not to ban and restrict
artistic expression. It's to develop a more empathetic and synergetic culture -
openly and honestly.


-->

go ahead and act oblivious though...

Don't piss off the massas.

http://io9.com/lokis-wager-is-why-you-cant-win-arguments-on-the-inter-1679484756/+tinaamini