Pope on Charlie Hebdo: There are limits to free expression

[Wilikon]

At least the church is being consistent?

Also, it seems the "freedom of expression" France has become such a big fan of recently has limitations as well: French comedian to be tried after Charlie Hebdo gag

Freedom of expression! (...as long as it's approved of expression.)

Some freedom of expression are freer for some, not much for Dieudo!!!!!!

Vive la France.

A little context here: France doesn't have freedom of speech in the same sense as the U. S. They have laws against "hate speech". In fact, the people at Charlie Hebdo were taken to court in 2007 over their drawings. They weren't convicted. I don't know if Dieudonne will be convicted of anything.

It should be pointed out though, in very clear terms, that Dieudonne is a Jew-hating Nazi. In the U. S. it's not illegal to be a Jew-hating Nazi, but in France it's at least of questionable legality. (Here in Canada it's closer to France than the U.S. with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.) Maybe if Dieudonne is tried it'll help clarify whether or not being a Jew-hating Nazi is legal in France.

I personally am a free speech absolutist, so I think Dieudonne should be free to spread his Jew-hatred and I should be free to point out that he's a Jew-hater. It's better for things to be out in the open and to have the cards on the table.

People may think I'm trolling, or joking, or being needlessly provacative by calling Dieudonne a Jew-hating Nazi, but I'm not. Go read about him.  Since it's essentially illegal to do a Nazi salute, he invented an inverted Nazi salute ("Quenelle") that he could get away with. Jew-hatred never really went away in Europe, it just went underground with Europeans. Then they imported many North Africans for whom Jew-hatred never even had to go underground. This allows the Europeans to outsource their Jew-hatred. Sad. Clever, but sad. It's not surprising that a Jew-hating Nazi like Dieudonne would have such a large following and so many supporters. And that swastikas a regularly painted on Jewish graves in Europe. And that every once in a while a Jew-hater goes on a Jew-killing spree. And people pretend to be sad briefly, and then ignore it.

This was all an aside from the main point of this thread, which was, of course that Pope Francis has insulted a freedom that is as dear to me as my mother, so if I ever meet him it's good to know he's OK with me punching him in the face. Or shooting him in the head Charlie Hebdo style. I'm not sure if Pope Francis was talking about face-punching or head-shooting. Either way.

Strange.

I thought he became famous and the darling of the gauche caviar when he started campaigning against jm lepen, the then leader of the national front. Also strange he became famous for being in a duo for many many years with an jew called Élie Semoun, making fun of jew haters and racists in general.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPa2SOyRm7g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9fi0PCmBQg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj2cuAa-Z-4


What about that video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnFUIx7OdTQ

What does that tell us? Could you translate or give your general opinion about it?

What event in his life made him become that jew-hating nazi?

[criptix]

That would be pretty interesting to know.
he was member of the left wing and a good friend with a jew till 1990?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieudonné_M'bala_M'bala

Everything after that... well you kinda could describe him as a jew hating nazi

[pedrog]

At least the church is being consistent?

Also, it seems the "freedom of expression" France has become such a big fan of recently has limitations as well: French comedian to be tried after Charlie Hebdo gag

Freedom of expression! (...as long as it's approved of expression.)

Some freedom of expression are freer for some, not much for Dieudo!!!!!!

Vive la France.

A little context here: France doesn't have freedom of speech in the same sense as the U. S. They have laws against "hate speech". In fact, the people at Charlie Hebdo were taken to court in 2007 over their drawings. They weren't convicted. I don't know if Dieudonne will be convicted of anything.

It should be pointed out though, in very clear terms, that Dieudonne is a Jew-hating Nazi. In the U. S. it's not illegal to be a Jew-hating Nazi, but in France it's at least of questionable legality. (Here in Canada it's closer to France than the U.S. with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.) Maybe if Dieudonne is tried it'll help clarify whether or not being a Jew-hating Nazi is legal in France.

I personally am a free speech absolutist, so I think Dieudonne should be free to spread his Jew-hatred and I should be free to point out that he's a Jew-hater. It's better for things to be out in the open and to have the cards on the table.

People may think I'm trolling, or joking, or being needlessly provacative by calling Dieudonne a Jew-hating Nazi, but I'm not. Go read about him.  Since it's essentially illegal to do a Nazi salute, he invented an inverted Nazi salute ("Quenelle") that he could get away with. Jew-hatred never really went away in Europe, it just went underground with Europeans. Then they imported many North Africans for whom Jew-hatred never even had to go underground. This allows the Europeans to outsource their Jew-hatred. Sad. Clever, but sad. It's not surprising that a Jew-hating Nazi like Dieudonne would have such a large following and so many supporters. And that swastikas a regularly painted on Jewish graves in Europe. And that every once in a while a Jew-hater goes on a Jew-killing spree. And people pretend to be sad briefly, and then ignore it.

This was all an aside from the main point of this thread, which was, of course that Pope Francis has insulted a freedom that is as dear to me as my mother, so if I ever meet him it's good to know he's OK with me punching him in the face. Or shooting him in the head Charlie Hebdo style. I'm not sure if Pope Francis was talking about face-punching or head-shooting. Either way.

Correct, there are laws against hate speech in many European countries, even against Holocaust or war crimes denialism.

In 2011, the first man was charged with Holocaust denial in Budapest. The Court sentenced the man to 18 months in prison, suspended for three years, and probation. He also had to visit either Budapest's memorial museum, Auschwitz or Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. He chose his local Holocaust Memorial Center and had to make three visits in total and record his observations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial


"Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

There are laws everywhere restricting speech, the promotion of scams, medical or scientific claims that cannot be backed by evidence and incitement to violence are a few examples.

[pungopete468]

There are consequences to free expression, not limits...

If by consequences you mean violence, there is no justification for it. There is never justification to initiate violence.

False on many different levels. Unless your definition of violence requires "malicious intent", then it's true. However, I'm interpreting the context of violence in your post as meaning physical force. Never say never...

1. A threat is one form of expression which justifies the initiation of violence, when the issuer of that threat has the ability, means, and opportunity to carry out that threat in the moment it's issued. The recipient of that threat doesn't have any duty or obligation to wait for the threat to materialize before eliminating that threat by force.
2. Mental abuse has been shown to cause irreparable psychological damage, therefore when a person is being mentally abused, they have the right to initiate violence whenever violence is the most reasonable way to stop that damaging form of abuse; unlike a physical assault, they most likely have the opportunity to retreat, but if retreat is not possible, violence is justified to stop any form of damaging abuse.

Consequences do not mean violence in my post however, consequences represent any form of reaction. When people use expression without consideration of the likely reaction, they open themselves up to retaliation and sometimes get more than they expected. Without consideration, expression can be a dangerous personal liability.

[criptix]

There are consequences to free expression, not limits...

If by consequences you mean violence, there is no justification for it. There is never justification to initiate violence.

False on many different levels. Unless your definition of violence requires "malicious intent", then it's true. However, I'm interpreting the context of violence in your post as meaning physical force. Never say never...

1. A threat is one form of expression which justifies the initiation of violence, when the issuer of that threat has the ability, means, and opportunity to carry out that threat in the moment it's issued. The recipient of that threat doesn't have any duty or obligation to wait for the threat to materialize before eliminating that threat by force.
2. Mental abuse has been shown to cause irreparable psychological damage, therefore when a person is being mentally abused, they have the right to initiate violence whenever violence is the most reasonable way to stop that damaging form of abuse; unlike a physical assault, they most likely have the opportunity to retreat, but if retreat is not possible, violence is justified to stop any form of damaging abuse.

Consequences do not mean violence in my post however, consequences represent any form of reaction. When people use expression without consideration of the likely reaction, they open themselves up to retaliation and sometimes get more than they expected. Without consideration, expression can be a dangerous personal liability.

I like your explanation.

But would that help?
Free speech but everyone has to live up to the consequences? Not sure if that works because it kinda sounds like an eye for an eye and the whole world would be blind

[pungopete468]

There are consequences to free expression, not limits...

If by consequences you mean violence, there is no justification for it. There is never justification to initiate violence.

False on many different levels. Unless your definition of violence requires "malicious intent", then it's true. However, I'm interpreting the context of violence in your post as meaning physical force. Never say never...

1. A threat is one form of expression which justifies the initiation of violence, when the issuer of that threat has the ability, means, and opportunity to carry out that threat in the moment it's issued. The recipient of that threat doesn't have any duty or obligation to wait for the threat to materialize before eliminating that threat by force.
2. Mental abuse has been shown to cause irreparable psychological damage, therefore when a person is being mentally abused, they have the right to initiate violence whenever violence is the most reasonable way to stop that damaging form of abuse; unlike a physical assault, they most likely have the opportunity to retreat, but if retreat is not possible, violence is justified to stop any form of damaging abuse.

Consequences do not mean violence in my post however, consequences represent any form of reaction. When people use expression without consideration of the likely reaction, they open themselves up to retaliation and sometimes get more than they expected. Without consideration, expression can be a dangerous personal liability.

I like your explanation.

But would that help?
Free speech but everyone has to live up to the consequences? Not sure if that works because it kinda sounds like an eye for an eye and the whole world would be blind

That's the only way it can work, nowhere in nature can there be an interaction without a consequence; be it positive, neutral, or negative from the perspective of the actor. If somebody doesn't want a negative consequence, they should choose their words more wisely or considerately. The problem with no freedom of expression lies where the root of expression will continue to exist in non-verbal thought. People don't have to express how they feel, but restricting expression eliminates the opportunity to prevent a bad outcome by eliminating the most reliable warning signs...

[username18333]

There are consequences to free expression, not limits...

If by consequences you mean violence, there is no justification for it. There is never justification to initiate violence.

False on many different levels. Unless your definition of violence requires "malicious intent", then it's true. However, I'm interpreting the context of violence in your post as meaning physical force. Never say never...

1. A threat is one form of expression which justifies the initiation of violence, when the issuer of that threat has the ability, means, and opportunity to carry out that threat in the moment it's issued. The recipient of that threat doesn't have any duty or obligation to wait for the threat to materialize before eliminating that threat by force.
2. Mental abuse has been shown to cause irreparable psychological damage, therefore when a person is being mentally abused, they have the right to initiate violence whenever violence is the most reasonable way to stop that damaging form of abuse; unlike a physical assault, they most likely have the opportunity to retreat, but if retreat is not possible, violence is justified to stop any form of damaging abuse.

Consequences do not mean violence in my post however, consequences represent any form of reaction. When people use expression without consideration of the likely reaction, they open themselves up to retaliation and sometimes get more than they expected. Without consideration, expression can be a dangerous personal liability.

I like your explanation.

But would that help?
Free speech but everyone has to live up to the consequences? Not sure if that works because it kinda sounds like an eye for an eye and the whole world would be blind

That's the only way it can work, nowhere in nature can there be an action without a consequence; be it positive, neutral, or negative from the perspective of the actor. If you don't want a negative consequence, choose your words more wisely. The problem with no freedom of expression lies where the root of expression will continue to exist in non-verbal thought. People don't have to express how they feel, but restricting expression eliminates the opportunity to prevent a bad outcome by eliminating the most reliable warning signs...

One could also proceed to crucify any that would lend its opinion regard sufficient for reaction.

[pungopete468]

There are consequences to free expression, not limits...

If by consequences you mean violence, there is no justification for it. There is never justification to initiate violence.

False on many different levels. Unless your definition of violence requires "malicious intent", then it's true. However, I'm interpreting the context of violence in your post as meaning physical force. Never say never...

1. A threat is one form of expression which justifies the initiation of violence, when the issuer of that threat has the ability, means, and opportunity to carry out that threat in the moment it's issued. The recipient of that threat doesn't have any duty or obligation to wait for the threat to materialize before eliminating that threat by force.
2. Mental abuse has been shown to cause irreparable psychological damage, therefore when a person is being mentally abused, they have the right to initiate violence whenever violence is the most reasonable way to stop that damaging form of abuse; unlike a physical assault, they most likely have the opportunity to retreat, but if retreat is not possible, violence is justified to stop any form of damaging abuse.

Consequences do not mean violence in my post however, consequences represent any form of reaction. When people use expression without consideration of the likely reaction, they open themselves up to retaliation and sometimes get more than they expected. Without consideration, expression can be a dangerous personal liability.

I like your explanation.

But would that help?
Free speech but everyone has to live up to the consequences? Not sure if that works because it kinda sounds like an eye for an eye and the whole world would be blind

That's the only way it can work, nowhere in nature can there be an action without a consequence; be it positive, neutral, or negative from the perspective of the actor. If you don't want a negative consequence, choose your words more wisely. The problem with no freedom of expression lies where the root of expression will continue to exist in non-verbal thought. People don't have to express how they feel, but restricting expression eliminates the opportunity to prevent a bad outcome by eliminating the most reliable warning signs...

One could also proceed to crucify any that would give its opinion regard sufficient for reaction.

Only when you introduce external factors like government does this become any serious threat... If this were an individual action, they could just as easily proceed to crucify randomly without any provocation, and would likely be dealt the hand of natural selection...

[username18333]

There are consequences to free expression, not limits...

If by consequences you mean violence, there is no justification for it. There is never justification to initiate violence.

False on many different levels. Unless your definition of violence requires "malicious intent", then it's true. However, I'm interpreting the context of violence in your post as meaning physical force. Never say never...

1. A threat is one form of expression which justifies the initiation of violence, when the issuer of that threat has the ability, means, and opportunity to carry out that threat in the moment it's issued. The recipient of that threat doesn't have any duty or obligation to wait for the threat to materialize before eliminating that threat by force.
2. Mental abuse has been shown to cause irreparable psychological damage, therefore when a person is being mentally abused, they have the right to initiate violence whenever violence is the most reasonable way to stop that damaging form of abuse; unlike a physical assault, they most likely have the opportunity to retreat, but if retreat is not possible, violence is justified to stop any form of damaging abuse.

Consequences do not mean violence in my post however, consequences represent any form of reaction. When people use expression without consideration of the likely reaction, they open themselves up to retaliation and sometimes get more than they expected. Without consideration, expression can be a dangerous personal liability.

I like your explanation.

But would that help?
Free speech but everyone has to live up to the consequences? Not sure if that works because it kinda sounds like an eye for an eye and the whole world would be blind

That's the only way it can work, nowhere in nature can there be an action without a consequence; be it positive, neutral, or negative from the perspective of the actor. If you don't want a negative consequence, choose your words more wisely. The problem with no freedom of expression lies where the root of expression will continue to exist in non-verbal thought. People don't have to express how they feel, but restricting expression eliminates the opportunity to prevent a bad outcome by eliminating the most reliable warning signs...

One could also proceed to crucify any that would give its opinion regard sufficient for reaction.

Only when you introduce external factors like government does this become any serious threat... If this were an individual action, they could just as easily proceed to crucify randomly without any provocation, and would likely be dealt the hand of natural selection...

However, without state, there exists private control of nuclear weaponry—a means to a reduction of pseudo-intellectual feeling.

[username18333]

Forsooth, it could be said, “The greatest of restraints is that placed upon reaction, for it dictates all others.”

[pungopete468]

There already exists private control of nuclear weaponry, yet we are still here...

The means to destroy everything exists, and will continue to exist, since it will always be possible to do what has already been done...

Even a reaction is a form of expression. Choose wisely any expression, because the consequences of a reaction are no less than the consequences of an action.

[BLKBITZ]

I hate the pope and the whole hierarchy. if you want to talk to god pray don't talk to some child molester.

[username18333]

There already exists private control of nuclear weaponry, yet we are still here...

The means to destroy everything exists, and will continue to exist, since it will always be possible to do what has already been done...

Even a reaction is a form of expression. Choose wisely any expression, because the consequences of a reaction are no less than the consequences of an action.

It would seem, therefore, that the hubris termed "Homo sapiens sapiens" is yet to receive correction sufficient for wisdom (namely, "rogue" asteroids).

[broadsword]

freedom of speech and hate speech is different. everything has a cause and effect insulting is not the route to take, a debate is better. plus if people believe this is all just done by a few people look at the previous editorial which did the same thing and see how much they profited from the event.

governments are the real cartels.

[username18333]

freedom of speech and hate speech is different. everything has a cause and effect insulting is not the route to take, a debate is better. plus if people believe this is all just done by a few people look at the previous editorial which did the same thing and see how much they profited from the event.

governments are the real cartels.

"Hate speech" is just what people don't want to hear so much that they'll strike its source merely so as not to be "brought to [reason]."

[BLKBITZ]

freedom of speech and hate speech is different. everything has a cause and effect insulting is not the route to take, a debate is better. plus if people believe this is all just done by a few people look at the previous editorial which did the same thing and see how much they profited from the event.

governments are the real cartels.

That is all opinion though. The way people are now anything could be labeled as "Hate speech"

[pungopete468]

It would seem, therefore, that the hubris termed "Homo sapiens sapiens" is yet to receive correction sufficient for wisdom (namely, "rogue" asteroids).

That's not in question, it's obvious that wisdom within humanity exists as a few diamonds in a trash dump, and "rogue asteroids" will certainly cause havoc eventually (statistically speaking.) Part of the human condition is the ability to act out of control, and that's a fundamental consequence of self awareness...  

[Lethn]

freedom of speech and hate speech is different. everything has a cause and effect insulting is not the route to take, a debate is better. plus if people believe this is all just done by a few people look at the previous editorial which did the same thing and see how much they profited from the event.

governments are the real cartels.

That is all opinion though. The way people are now anything could be labeled as "Hate speech"

I think peoples comments towards freedom of speech are hateful since they clearly want to attack anybody who actually says what they want, therefore it's hate speech, so quick! Jail him! People who talk about bullshit like hate speech and limiting freedom of speech and expression really aren't thinking about what's coming out of their mouths.

Also, I think the way that people blatantly accuse Anarchists and Bitcoin users alike of being criminals, drug dealers, terorrists and peadophiles is a deliberate attack shoudl be put into jail for their hateful comments as well, oh wait, nevermind, some groups get more preferential treatment than others because it turns out we aren't all actually equal.

[username18333]

It would seem, therefore, that the hubris termed "Homo sapiens sapiens" is yet to receive correction sufficient for wisdom (namely, "rogue" asteroids).

That's not in question, it's obvious that wisdom within humanity exists as a few diamonds in a trash dump, and "rogue asteroids" will certainly cause havoc eventually (statistically speaking.) Part of the human condition is the ability to act out of control, and that's a fundamental consequence of self awareness...  

You don't seem to have understood why there are scare quotes around "rogue." Who, looking upon your obstinateness from without it, would not, by its might, crush you unto nothing?

[pungopete468]

It would seem, therefore, that the hubris termed "Homo sapiens sapiens" is yet to receive correction sufficient for wisdom (namely, "rogue" asteroids).

That's not in question, it's obvious that wisdom within humanity exists as a few diamonds in a trash dump, and "rogue asteroids" will certainly cause havoc eventually (statistically speaking.) Part of the human condition is the ability to act out of control, and that's a fundamental consequence of self awareness...  

You don't seem to have understood why there are scare quotes around "rogue." Who, looking upon your obstinateness from without it, would not, by its might, crush you unto nothing?

Perhaps I don't understand your meaning, this is what I believe you meant; if I'm mistaken then please enlighten me. By rogue asteroids I thought you meant the inevitable isolated case of extreme havoc as a result of great potential energy within the grasp of an overwhelmingly fallible species where wisdom exists as an extreme minority.

By your next point, I'm extremely obstinate when I consider a motion in any direction inspired by fear, and without a clear path, especially when that motion limits my ability to stand my ground...