Comedy Act Banned because of Hate Speech

[Kraenen]

For every (rare) person who can fully function and knows right and wrong without laws and also acts BASED on right and wrong and moralities, there are a thousand who can't. Okay, I don't know the exact number, but prisons sure as hell prove you wrong.

prisons are filled with non-violent criminals for weed. i'm not gonna take them as a metric for morality.

[Wildtree]

When the government bans something you like arbitrarily are you going to sing a different tune? Or roll over because government knows best? Your hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil metaphor applies directly to your stance right now. You would rather an authority figure expunge something from your presence than to admit that your own ideals might just not line up with everyone else in the world. Please check yourself before you cry hypocrite.

That's what you imply now....
What about, I refuse to automatically label the government in the wrong?
if the government crosses a line, that's to be addressed.. if an individual crosses it, that's to be addressed...
You will never find me locked in on either side. I take stance on a case by case decision. In this case I just happen to agree with the government... That's all

[lawow74]

And seeing this makes me think of this great old bit from the immortal Lenny Bruce:

[Imnick]

Originally active with anti-racist left-wing groups, Dieudonne began openly criticising Jews and Israel in 2002 and ran in the European elections two years later with a pro-Palestinian party.

Seems like they did the right thing here.

[Wildtree]

prisons are filled with non-violent criminals for weed. i'm not gonna take them as a metric for morality.

That's a rather isolated problem in the USA though... In most western countries weed has been at least decriminalized. And aside from dealers no consumers are in the jails.

[darkwarrior42]

Freedom of speech uncontrolled would also mean, there ain't no hate speech..
With that one could advocate freely to not only defend crimes on humanity, but also to repeat them again.
Suddenly promoting gang rape of toddlers as a spare time hobby of high value would be free speech.
I mean one can expand that into a whole book, of all the atrocities that are clearly that and banned from Free Speech for a reason, would be no atrocities anymore?

What you're talking about extends beyond simple speech. Freedom of Speech, at its core, represents the freedom to express your beliefs and thoughts without fear of government reprisal. This freedom is at the core of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution (yes, I know the incident happened in France): that people are free to think and believe however they like. Freedom of Speech guarantees we can express those beliefs, Freedom of Religion guarantees that we won't be told we have to believe something else, Freedom of the Press guarantees that we can publish our views to anyone who wishes to listen, Freedom of Assembly means that we can gather in groups to discuss or express ourselves, and Freedom of Redress means we can tell the government what we think without fear of arrest or punishment.

I hate to use the overused example, but shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater isn't just speech. It's speech that compels others to action, and creates a very real risk of injury or loss of life.

So, does hate speech fall into that category? The category of trying to compel others to action? In general, no; I can talk all day long about that which I hate, and that doesn't mean that I'm trying to make you do anything. To go back to the theater example, I can talk about the dangers of fire and how much it would suck to be trapped in a burning theater, but if I'm not screaming about there actually being a fire or otherwise taking action to get people to move, all I'm doing is expressing my opinion.


And the reason so many of us believe so strongly in freedom of speech, even in the case of speech that is hateful or offensive, is because it is ultimately the government that would be passing laws regarding what is and is not offensive or hateful. So in France, we have a comedian whose act has been banned for being insensitive toward holocaust victims. What other groups of people are forbidden now? Tomorrow will it be the government that is so protected? We cannot guarantee that will happen (that would be a Slippery Slope fallacy, after all), but once we have established the principle that "The government is allowed to decide what we are and are not allowed to express", there is little legal argument for opposing any such proposals.

It is clear from your statements that you neither believe in nor value freedom of speech; that you are perfectly happy to let the government decide what you are and are not allowed to say. Catch is, you cannot place arbitrary limits on that. Statements like "I believe the government should limit speech so long as it's only distasteful speech" don't work, because the government also gets to decide what is distasteful. Statements like "I believe only offensive/hateful/derogatory speech should be limited' fail for the same reason.

*shrug* It is, of course, your right to not believe in freedom of speech, and to express that fact. But don't try to pretend that you believe in "limited free speech" when you are willing to apply those limits to anything except speech that compels action or other forms of speech that are not only speech. If you believe in limiting speech simply because it's hateful or offensive, then you do not believe in the freedom in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

That's what you imply now....
What about, I refuse to automatically label the government in the wrong?
if the government crosses a line, that's to be addressed.. if an individual crosses it, that's to be addressed...
You will never find me locked in on either side. I take stance on a case by case decision. In this case I just happen to agree with the government... That's all

You can take things on a case by case basis all you like, but the principles you establish still stand.

In this case, by agreeing with the government's decision, you establish the principle that you believe the government should have the power to restrict speech that is not inherently harmful, on the basis that it is hateful or offensive, and by necessity you also establish the principle that the government has the power to decide whether speech qualifies as hateful or harmful. By those principles, you have already established the principle that the government can restrict any speech it likes, without consequence, so long as they can present an argument that it is in some fashion hateful or harmful.

Edit: And "harmful" in this case doesn't mean true physical harm, as in the case of speech that compels action. It simply means that if the government can show someone would be upset by your words, they can ban or restrict those words from being spoken... the government gets to decide whether they're "harmful".

[Zoranon]

What you're talking about extends beyond simple speech. Freedom of Speech, at its core, represents the freedom to express your beliefs and thoughts without fear of government reprisal. This freedom is at the core of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution (yes, I know the incident happened in France): that people are free to think and believe however they like. Freedom of Speech guarantees we can express those beliefs, Freedom of Religion guarantees that we won't be told we have to believe something else, Freedom of the Press guarantees that we can publish our views to anyone who wishes to listen, Freedom of Assembly means that we can gather in groups to discuss or express ourselves, and Freedom of Redress means we can tell the government what we think without fear of arrest or punishment.

I hate to use the overused example, but shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater isn't just speech. It's speech that compels others to action, and creates a very real risk of injury or loss of life.

So, does hate speech fall into that category? The category of trying to compel others to action? In general, no; I can talk all day long about that which I hate, and that doesn't mean that I'm trying to make you do anything. To go back to the theater example, I can talk about the dangers of fire and how much it would suck to be trapped in a burning theater, but if I'm not screaming about there actually being a fire or otherwise taking action to get people to move, all I'm doing is expressing my opinion.


And the reason so many of us believe so strongly in freedom of speech, even in the case of speech that is hateful or offensive, is because it is ultimately the government that would be passing laws regarding what is and is not offensive or hateful. So in France, we have a comedian whose act has been banned for being insensitive toward holocaust victims. What other groups of people are forbidden now? Tomorrow will it be the government that is so protected? We cannot guarantee that will happen (that would be a Slippery Slope fallacy, after all), but once we have established the principle that "The government is allowed to decide what we are and are not allowed to express", there is little legal argument for opposing any such proposals.

It is clear from your statements that you neither believe in nor value freedom of speech; that you are perfectly happy to let the government decide what you are and are not allowed to say. Catch is, you cannot place arbitrary limits on that. Statements like "I believe the government should limit speech so long as it's only distasteful speech" don't work, because the government also gets to decide what is distasteful. Statements like "I believe only offensive/hateful/derogatory speech should be limited' fail for the same reason.

*shrug* It is, of course, your right to not believe in freedom of speech, and to express that fact. But don't try to pretend that you believe in "limited free speech" when you are willing to apply those limits to anything except speech that compels action or other forms of speech that are not only speech. If you believe in limiting speech simply because it's hateful or offensive, then you do not believe in the freedom in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -



You can take things on a case by case basis all you like, but the principles you establish still stand.

In this case, by agreeing with the government's decision, you establish the principle that you believe the government should have the power to restrict speech that is not inherently harmful, on the basis that it is hateful or offensive, and by necessity you also establish the principle that the government has the power to decide whether speech qualifies as hateful or harmful. By those principles, you have already established the principle that the government can restrict any speech it likes, without consequence, so long as they can present an argument that it is in some fashion hateful or harmful.

Thank you, you put what I was trying to say for 10 pages in much better way. It ok to not be for free speech, just be honest about it.

[Bigbamboozal]

Even if it is hate speech it shouldn't be banned

O.o really? So hate speech is okay in your eyes?
So it's only bad if you are personally the target?
Where do you draw the line? Racism? Suggesting murder of a race in totality?
Making fun of people who's families are murdered?
No where?
Interesting.

OT:I think it's a refreshing attempt at raising the bar. Right to free speech ends where you start to hurt people I guess, but it wouldn't have to if people had the class and respect to know you shouldn't make jokes about some shit. If you doubt that try going and making bomb jokes at an airport. Freedom of speech right?

[Zoranon]

O.o really? So hate speech is okay in your eyes?
So it's only bad if you are personally the target?
Where do you draw the line? Racism? Suggesting murder of a race in totality?
Making fun of people who's families are murdered?
No where?
Interesting.

OT:I think it's a refreshing attempt at raising the bar. Right to free speech ends where you start to hurt people I guess, but it wouldn't have to if people had the class and respect to know you shouldn't make jokes about some shit. If you doubt that try going and making bomb jokes at an airport. Freedom of speech right?

How ironic considering your location.

[jaakkeli]

Suggesting murder of a race in totality?

Yes, people should absolutely be free to advocate genocide. In a democracy this is a great way to marginalize radical racists as very few people in any society are going to vote for genocidal maniacs.

Movements that actually led to genocides like the Nazis went to great lengths to HIDE their true plans from the mainstream voting public. The Nazis did not win elections by promising to kill off the Jews, they won elections by being quiet about their most radical plans. The more freedom wannabe mass murderers have to announce their plans before they're in power, the better.

A big part of just why the Nazis' true plans were hidden was that Germany did not have freedom of speech and the Nazis were frequently banned from speaking out under laws similar to today's hate speech laws. To repeat it once more: the vast majority of Germans were unaware of the Nazis' true plans and one reason why they were unaware of just how radical they were was that Germany had "hate speech" laws that forced the Nazis to hide the extent of their radicalism.

This is why it should always be legal to advocate genocide.

[PickleballAce]

I agree with you that Israel is a pretty douchy hypocrite state.


Europe doesn't has even close as many shootings as the US has (despite twice the population), our immigrant populations are a lot better integrated, America has way more neonazi's then Europe.

And Europe doesn't has a bible belt the size of France and Germany combined.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rs-Krakow.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/20/sp...new/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_...ootball#Europe

It can happen everywhere but there is a long history of very public displays of racial intolerance in European sport and elsewhere. It's bad enough that there exists a need for actual organized anti-racism movements just to remind European football fans to not be cunts.




And Europe has to be more sensitive to this because we know what happens in Europe when hate speech goes unchecked.

I would love to see a source for: "America has way more neonazis then Europe." assuming we even have a decent grasp on the numbers.

[vandalhart]

I think it's a bit ridiculous but then again this is Europe. I get the impression the governments over there bend pretty far back to avoid insulting anyone.

[Deleted]

Well, Dieudonné is not antisemitic, I believe he's not, he's joking about every ethnic groups and only the jewishs react, only the antisemitic jokes has been noticed by the government while he's in fact joking about every ethnic group on this planet.

But, he's also having some friendly relations with some extremists, such as Robert Faurisson who thinks the Shoah never happened (He went in prison for his ideas, it whouldn't have happened IMO, this guy is not evil despite his ideas, Dieudonné thinks we shouldn't hate him just because of his ideas (which are not racists or antisemitical, he just thinks the shoah never happened) and I agree with him on this point), I have nothing against that, it's an opinion, but it's chocking for many peoples, also, her daughter is the godchild of the ex ultranationalist local party's leader, but he doesn't share ideas with this one, it's all provocation I think.

I'm not okay with banning him from comedy, he's really fun, and it's a violation of speech freedom, not to mention the justice said he should be able to act but the government kept with it's decision, ignoring the justice's sentance, in fact France's state is outlaw.
The other problem I have with it is that the only problem for the government seems to be the "hatred" directed towards jews (which is in fact nothing more but jokes) when he's joking about every ethnic group, this might mean that the government serves jewish's interest.

But I don't think Dieudonné is a "good person" at all, I think he's trying to make money out of that, in his last video he said that buying his DvD was a kind of resistance and that it was the best thing to do against the government, and peoples believes him, even though I do not appreciate this sionist lobby over France, Dieudonné looks like a scammer to me.

I think that if the jewishs continues on this way, peoples out there will become highly antisemitic...

[Zoldor]

Its fun to watch everyone react to this and be like wtf this is happening in France. Do a little research on "liberal" France and their "tolerance." They ban speech in a lot of forms. Religous T-Shirts etc. This is what happens when political correctness goes too far, we get silly bans to stop people from getting their feelings hurt. France is notorious for its bans on Speech. Not sure why people are surprised, then again its not popular to hate on France.

The thought police are worse in EU than in the US, then again they've had wars fought on their home soil that started with Hate speech. This has actually been fairly popular in sports as well, a french soccer player was punished for using the salute used by the comedian after scoring a goal.

Opinion on this, guy should be allowed to do his thing. Punishing people like this isn't the answer to stopping racism etc.

[Zoranon]

I think it's a bit ridiculous but then again this is Europe. I get the impression the governments over there bend pretty far back to avoid insulting anyone.

Pretty much yes, it is sad, but it is the trend in Europe now.