Support NeoGAF

[Alx]

It's notable because of all the RA RA FREE SPEECH stuff that's been going on in France lately.

I think people focus too much about the "free speech" aspect actually. We're not in the same situation as 2006, when it was discussed whether it was ok to publish caricatures of Muhammad or not. We are in a situation where people got murdered for that.
4 million people didn't really march for free speech, they marched against people being killed for their ideas. Violence is the key element, here, that's what changed everything.

 

[The Smoking Bun]

He is referencing Charlie so he can claim free speech. He is allowed to shock because it is like Charlie Hebdo, only you know actually racist.

How is it racist? I don't see a racial tangent to the Facebook post at least

 

[Arksy]

I think people focus too much about the "free speech" aspect actually. We're not in the same situation as 2006, when it was discussed whether it was ok to publish caricatures of Muhammad or not. We are in a situation where people got murdered for that.
4 million people didn't really march for free speech, they marched against people being killed for their ideas. Violence is the key element, here, that's what changed everything.

Violence, which is exactly what the state perpetrated against Dieudonne, for the crime of speaking his mind.

 

[leadbelly]

There's some degree of irony in honoring the deaths of cartoonists who died for free speech by arresting people for making dumb jokes on Facebook.

Yep. Welcome to Europe.

 

[rambis]

France has certain restrictions on free speech, hate speech being one of them. The UN who is responsible for the declaration you're quoting, has already long stated free speech where hate speech and incitement of violence begins. Siding with the guy that killed four Jews for being Jews and has a long history of anti-semitism shows the intent of the message: hate speech.

Exactly the point.

Also that's not from the UN, its a definition not a declaration.

 

[AppleMIX]

Man, I'm completely blown away by some of the opinions people hold here.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Is a pretty common quote thrown around (often attributed to Voltaire) and I agree with it 100%. Letting jackasses like westboro baptist church protest funerals is the cost of freedom.

 

[SolidusDave]

Well seems like hypocrisy to me. Sure the guy is probably a vile piece of shit, but as an American it seems weird to celebrate free speech on one hand while on the other criminalizing speech you don't like.

The banning hate speech concept is more about not tolerating people who incite hatred against another group of people. If you publicly shout for killing all Arabs, that can lead to a trial.

Particularity if you support known violent or hate spreading groups (which e.g. in Germany will be banned organizations, for that very reason), then they have an easy case against you. A group that adores Nazis will be banned just like a group that aligns themselves with ISIS.

I agree that for e.g. US citizens it must be a weird concept and not 100% true free speech, but on the other hand for me it's sometimes unbelievable what kind of shit&hate people are allowed to spread in the US, allowing the KKK to roam free etc.

I think I've never seen the wrong people actually getting fined/trialed with it, so I would say it "works" (obviously this won't change anyone's mind nor does it eradicate racist thoughts etc., but it makes it much harder to spread to a wide audience and organize).


That said, I don't think it's warranted in that case. At least it's not my definition of hate speech. Edit: I guess the aligning with terrorists angle works considering his antisemitism backstory, but still, the statement itself is just tasteless but nothing else.

 

[Alx]

Violence, which is exactly what the state perpetrated against Dieudonne, for the crime of speaking his mind.

As far as I know, nobody shot him. Let's not exaggerate things, shall we ?

 

[TheRedSnifit]

I think people focus too much about the "free speech" aspect actually. We're not in the same situation as 2006, when it was discussed whether it was ok to publish caricatures of Muhammad or not. We are in a situation where people got murdered for that.
4 million people didn't really march for free speech, they marched against people being killed for their ideas. Violence is the key element, here, that's what changed everything.

Out of curiosity, what do you think would have happened to Dieudonne if he'd refused to go to court?

The rallies were about not having to live in fear because of your ideas, whether it's the fear of getting shot by Islamists or the fear of getting thrown in jail. I can understand some restrictions - like if he'd made a specific threat - but being anti-Semetic should not be something you go to court over in and of itself.

 

[Alx]

Out of curiosity, what do you think would have happened to Dieudonne if he'd refused to go to court?

I'm quite sure he wouldn't have died...

 

[Arksy]

As far as I know, nobody shot him. Let's not exaggerate things, shall we ?

The act of arresting someone is itself an act of violence. That's what a state is, it's a monopoly on violence. Laws compel you to behave a certain way with the threat of violence if you refuse to comply. This isn't even my own argument, take it up with Max Weber. I don't even care, I was only trying to point out that your own criteria by saying that violence must never be used for speech, is exactly what the state is doing in this situation.

I'm quite sure he wouldn't have died...

No, probably not, while that's a possibility the most likely scenario is that he would've been forcibly subdued and taken to a court.

 

[neorej]

Man, I'm completely blown away by some of the opinions people hold here.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Is a pretty common quote thrown around (often attributed to Voltaire) and I agree with it 100%. Letting jackasses like westboro baptist church protest funerals is the cost of freedom.

There's a huge gap between saying "The cartoons of Charlie Hebdo are offensive." and saying you actually feel aligned with people who are responsible for 12 innocent deaths over cartoons.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

I'm quite sure he wouldn't have died...

Yes, I suppose so. It's a sad state of the times where "only" having to worry about getting violently subdued by the police for your Facebook posts is not seen as unreasonable.

 

[Alx]

Are you seriously likening the act of arresting someone to the act of killing him ? Let's be serious there. You may or may not agree on the fact that police can arrest people, but it's an act that is perfectly assumed by law and society, while murder is not.
Shooting the Kouachi brothers and Coulibaly is an act of violence too, but nobody has issues with that. I think it should be clear what kind of violence has been criticized by the French population lately, pretending otherwise is playing dumb.

 

[Arksy]

Are you seriously likening the act of arresting someone to the act of killing him ? Let's be serious there. You may or may not agree on the fact that police can arrest people, but it's an act that is perfectly assumed by law and society, while murder is not.
Shooting the Kouachi brothers and Coulibaly is an act of violence too, but nobody has issues with that. I think it should be clear what kind of violence has been criticized by the French population lately, pretending otherwise is playing dumb.

No, I don't care about police arresting people. That's not the argument. You said that violence should never be used against people speaking their minds, I said that it was exactly what the state was doing in arresting this guy. Yes, there's a difference between arrest and murder, but both are violent acts. Your criteria, not mine. The whole point of free speech is that no one should be prosecuted for their beliefs. Yes, today, this means citizen vs the state in that the state is the vast apparatus with the power to detain and kill people, but it wasn't always like that. Especially prior to the English civil war.

 

[Alx]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough because it seemed obvious to me, but the kind of violence I was alluding to was the one that caused the death of seventeen people.
So I'll state it once again : people didn't march against the fact that people can get arrested for their opinions, they marched against the fact that they got killed for that.
It's not a matter of double standard concerning freedom of speech, it's litterally a matter of life and death.

 

[neorej]

No, I don't care about police arresting people. That's not the argument. You said that violence should never be used against people speaking their minds, I said that it was exactly what the state was doing in arresting this guy. Yes, there's a difference between arrest and murder, but both are violent acts. Your criteria, not mine. The whole point of free speech is that no one should be prosecuted for their beliefs. Yes, today, this means citizen vs the state in that the state is the vast apparatus with the power to detain and kill people, but it wasn't always like that. Especially prior to the English civil war.

And unlike the violence committed against Charlie Hebdo, this man will be tried for what he said and a court will decide whether it was hate speech or not.

You said:



Isn't he being threatened with violence for his ideas?

Nobody has killed him, nor is it likely he'll get the death penalty for speaking his racist hateful mind.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Are you seriously likening the act of arresting someone to the act of killing him ? Let's be serious there. You may or may not agree on the fact that police can arrest people, but it's an act that is perfectly assumed by law and society, while murder is not.
Shooting the Kouachi brothers and Coulibaly is an act of violence too, but nobody has issues with that. I think it should be clear what kind of violence has been criticized by the French population lately, pretending otherwise is playing dumb.

You said:

4 million people didn't really march for free speech, they marched against people being killed for their ideas. Violence is the key element, here, that's what changed everything.

Isn't he being threatened with violence for his ideas?

And unlike the violence committed against Charlie Hebdo, this man will be tried for what he said and a court will decide whether it was hate speech or not.

You and I clearly have different ideas of how a free society should operate. I, for one, don't believe that you should be arrested and made to go to trial over Facebook posts.

 

[Alx]

You said:



Isn't he being threatened with violence for his ideas?

Ok, replace "violence" by "death". Clear enough now ?

 

[TheRedSnifit]

And unlike the violence committed against Charlie Hebdo, this man will be tried for what he said and a court will decide whether it was hate speech or not.



Nobody has killed him, nor is it likely he'll get the death penalty for speaking his racist hateful mind.

Ok, replace "violence" by "death". Clear enough now ?

So violence is completely acceptable so long as nobody dies?

I think you two are deliberately missing my point here.

 

[Arksy]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough because it seemed obvious to me, but the kind of violence I was alluding to was the one that caused the death of seventeen people.
So I'll state it once again : people didn't march against the fact that people can get arrested for their opinions, they marched against the fact that they got killed for that.
It's not a matter of double standard concerning freedom of speech, it's litterally a matter of life and death.

It wasn't so long ago that criminal trials were a matter of life and death.

Ok, replace "violence" by "death". Clear enough now ?

But that's obviously not correct, because if I beat my neighbour for making a pro-Abortion speech that's clearly infringing on his right to speak freely.

 

[SapientWolf]

France has certain restrictions on free speech, hate speech being one of them. The UN who is responsible for the declaration you're quoting, has already long stated free speech where hate speech and incitement of violence begins. Siding with the guy that killed four Jews for being Jews and has a long history of anti-semitism shows the intent of the message: hate speech.

France's restrictions on free speech are vague and they're not enforced equally. Which ultimately allows the government to silence the ideas they don't like under the guise of protecting the public. Dieudonne is a clown and his *nod nod wink wink* bigotry is obnoxious, but the laws being used against him pose a danger to the freedom of expression in the country. You can't fight fascism with fascism.

 

[Joni]

You and I clearly have different ideas of how a free society should operate. I, for one, don't believe that you should be arrested and made to go to trial over Facebook posts.

While other people believe death threats, incitements of violence and hate speech don't belong in a free society.

Isn't he being threatened with violence for his ideas?

No. I don't agree with the view arresting someone is violence.

 

[Alx]

So violence is completely acceptable so long as nobody dies?

I think you two are deliberately missing my point here.

My point was that the march was a protest about people being killed, and not purely about free speech. Debating what kind of violence is acceptable or not is a matter of semantics and personal opinion. But the point on which so many people managed to agree that day, is that murderous violence is never acceptable.

 

[Arksy]

My point was that the march was a protest about people being killed, and not purely about free speech. Debating what kind of violence is acceptable or not is a matter of semantics and personal opinion. But the point on which so many people managed to agree that day, is that murderous violence is never acceptable.

I don't know. There have been terrorist attacks in France before and none of them have had the incredible amounts of support this one has had. None have had four million people take to the streets in grieving and support. None have touched the world like this attack. It was an attack on free speech, moreso than just mere violence. Obviously, you're right in that people were marching because they thought no one should be killed for their beliefs. I can't know what everyone in France thinks about the limits of free speech, but I'd love to see a poll on whether they agree with these laws.

 

[Alx]

It wasn't so long ago that criminal trials were a matter of life and death.

Yes, and ? I don't even know where you're getting at. First that time has gone 30 years ago, second even before that time, hate speech wouldn't have been punished by death.

But that's obviously not correct, because if I beat my neighbour for making a pro-Abortion speech that's clearly infringing on his right to speak freely.

That mostly infringes his right not to be beaten, whatever his opinions... Still don't see the point here.

 

[Alx]

I don't know. There have been terrorist attacks in France before and none of them have had the incredible amounts of support this one has had. None have had four million people take to the streets in grieving and support. None have touched the world like this attack. It was an attack on free speech, moreso than just mere violence.

Attacks on free speech aren't new. The whole Muhammad cartoons debate (and Charlie Hebdo special edition about it) happened in 2006. The journalists from Charlie Hebdo got regular death threats ever since, their office even got arsoned. There's a reason the editor in chief had a bodyguard. And like you said, there wasn't an incredible amount of support then. The magazine was even dying for lack of readers.
And suddenly, 4 million people voice their support for them. What changed ? People got killed.

 

[Arksy]

Attacks on free speech aren't new. The whole Muhammad cartoons debate (and Charlie Hebdo special edition about it) happened in 2006. The journalists from Charlie Hebdo got regular death threats ever since, their office even got arsoned. There's a reason the editor in chief had a bodyguard. And like you said, there wasn't an incredible amount of support then. The magazine was even dying for lack of readers.
And suddenly, 4 million people voice their support for them. What changed ? People got killed.

Yes, you're right. It's not just free speech, and, what I'm trying to say, is not that just the fact that people got killed. It was the fact that people got killed for what they believed in. I don't even know what we're arguing about any more.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

While other people believe death threats, incitements of violence and hate speech don't belong in a free society.

It wasn't an incitement of violence.

No. I don't agree with the view arresting someone is violence.

Arresting people is by definition violence. Criminals would not voluntarily go to jail, after all.

My point was that the march was a protest about people being killed, and not purely about free speech. Debating what kind of violence is acceptable or not is a matter of semantics and personal opinion. But the point on which so many people managed to agree that day, is that murderous violence is never acceptable.

People get killed all the time, and you don't see marches for every single one of them . What made this special was that it was (rightly) seen as an assault on free speech.

Anyways my laptops dying . Gotta go.

 

[Joni]

It wasn't an incitement of violence.

Yes, it wasn't one of three things I listed.

Arresting people is by definition violence. Criminals would not voluntarily go to jail, after all.

It isn't. Now what? You can always try explaining why you agree with the monopoly on legimitate use of physical force.

 

[Alx]

Yes, you're right. It's not just free speech, and, what I'm trying to say, is not that just the fact that people got killed. It was the fact that people got killed for what they believed in. I don't even know what we're arguing about any more.

You obviously don't. From the beginning I'm answering the opinion that the French may have double standards, defending free speech on one hand, and punishing Dieudonné for his opinions on the other.
What I'm saying is that the recent events weren't really about defending free speech as an ideal, it was about refusing that some people use murder against it. As a proof of that, and you mentioned it yourself, there wasn't such a reaction in the past when "only" free speech was concerned. But when opposing free speech leads to deadly violence, that's when you get a consensus on rejection.

 

[cripterion]

Free Speech in a nation that has banned women from wearing the Burka.

You can't even dress how you want.

What??!

I feel like i'm losing my time saying this but i'll say it anyways. I know almost everything there is to know about Dieudonné and the whole " quenelle " (the gesture he invented) controversy. You can believe me or not but that gesture has NOTHING to do with a nazi salute.

Now let me be clear, Dieudonné is an antisemite of the worst kind. There is ZERO doubt about that. He has close ties with one of the most fanatic french antisemite, Alain Soral, and he's obsessed with Jews. But doesn't change the fact that the gesture isn't a hitlerian salute. It originates from a very VERY old show of his, where he mimicked penetrating a mamal's ass with his hand. Saying " This is a quenelle in your ass " And gradually using his other hand to show how far he pushed his hand inside the animal's arse.

It's a very vulgar gesture, he started making it for about everything. When talking about a politician he hates he would do it, when talking about a journalist or an intellectual or a singer. And THEN some of his fans started posting pictures of themselves doing it and some of them did it in Auschwitz. Young thugs thinking it was funny to do it there and post those photos on the internet. That's when people started saying that it was a hitlerian salute. But it never was. The thugs who did it in Auschwitz were Antisemites who were basically saying " fuck jews ", but had no nazi affiliation or whatever. but that doesn't change the fact that the quenelle wasn't and never was a nazi salute.

Again, i couldn't care less about Dieudonné, he's always trying to provoke and victimize himself and has no respect for the families of dead people, jewish and non-jewish. But this is absolutely wrong for the government to use him as a scapegoat. My friend is a lawyer and he just posted on facebook that there is absolutely ZERO chance that he gets condemned for saying " Today i feel like i'm Charlie Coulibaly " ( Coulibaly was the name of one of the terrorists). Dieudonné later said that it was show how much he felt like the government was treating him like a terrorist when he was just a comedian. Censoring his shows already was a terrible mistake and it was a first since the second world war. It opened a pandora box. True justice is to wait for a comedian to make his show and then AFTER that you can take him to court if he says racist and antisemitic jokes. But what happened is that his show was banned BEFORE he performed it on the basis of some stolen footage, which was a first, This isn't how we do things in a democracy. At the end, he took out 3 jokes from his show and was allowed to perform it again, and he toured for many months.

Dieudonné is a piece of shit but what the government is doing is completely wrong. And anyone supporting this decision is blind.

Well said sir!

 

[jorma]

It's remarkable that people don't seem to recognise the double standard that's being applied here. If you are defending the right of Charlie Hedbo to publish their offensive cartoons (and you should be) you should be defending the right of Diedonne to post equally offensive posts on his facebook.

And if you only defend Charlie Hedbo, because their content isn't offensive to you, well then you aren't really "Charlie" after all.

 

[The Smoking Bun]

It's remarkable that people don't seem to recognise the double standard that's being applied here. If you are defending the right of Charlie Hedbo to publish their offensive cartoons (and you should be) you should be defending the right of Diedonne to post equally offensive posts on his facebook.

And if you only defend Charlie Hedbo, because their content isn't offensive to you, well then you aren't really "Charlie" after all.

Pretty much. Conversely, if the comedian has indeed broken a law via an offensive Facebook post then the law needs to be re-examined.
You can block people on Facebook, you can ban their ISP as well I believe but that has to be a decision made by the Facebook admins, this is like putting someone in prison because he insulted your mom over X-Box Live.

Now if this guy went and killed someone then you put him in prison.
If we put people in prison's for being assholes then we won't have enough prison's in the world

 

[Madness]

Who decides what's hate speech and what's not though? Believe it or not some people considered the cartoons hate speech.

That's just it. That's the very difference between free speech and not having free speech. What's the real difference between a free society and a dictatorship when it's the officials in charge deciding what can or cannot be said. No this isn't like yelling fire in a crowded theater, or threatening to kill someone. Those are crimes.

As shitty as people make America out to be, it's pretty great that people can ultimately say what they want without official government reprisal, as repugnant as what they say is. That's not to say speech should be free from consequences. You're free to say what you want, the rest of us are free to blacklist you, denounce you, fire you etc.

Example, and please mods don't ban for these swears, but it blows my mind sometimes that you can say to someone that they are a fat retard motherfucker cunt asshole who doesn't deserve to live, and be fine, and yet, saying I hate jews or fuck all you Muslims would most likely result in an arrest or be considered hate speech in these countries. And yes, I've been the victim of hate speech myself, but that doesn't mean I won't defend that person's right to say what he wants. I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments, but I would hate the precedent being set for current elected officials deciding what can or cannot be said.

 

[Alx]

It's remarkable that people don't seem to recognise the double standard that's being applied here. If you are defending the right of Charlie Hedbo to publish their offensive cartoons (and you should be) you should be defending the right of Diedonne to post equally offensive posts on his facebook.

And if you only defend Charlie Hedbo, because their content isn't offensive to you, well then you aren't really "Charlie" after all.

I don't support the detention of Dieudonné, and I don't really like the content of Charlie Hebdo either, but the situation isn't really the same in both cases. Mainly, there is no law in France against offending people. Dieudonné isn't accused of being offensive, he's accused (and not condemned yet) of "hate speech", or more exactly "apology of terrorrism".

In short :
Charlie Hebdo mocks religions (among others)
Dieudonné implies his support of an anti-semitic murderer

While I don't think the latter deserves detention (especially because it's mostly implied, although it doesn't fool anybody), it is not the same thing as simple satire.

 

[neorej]

It's remarkable that people don't seem to recognise the double standard that's being applied here. If you are defending the right of Charlie Hedbo to publish their offensive cartoons (and you should be) you should be defending the right of Diedonne to post equally offensive posts on his facebook.

And if you only defend Charlie Hedbo, because their content isn't offensive to you, well then you aren't really "Charlie" after all.

Again, if you can't see the difference between publishing satirical cartoons and stating you agree with a terrorist, you really should brush up on your knowledge of free speech.

 

[Dilly]

Looks like his bait worked.

 

[cripterion]

He may have not invented it with that meaning, but when his fans started using it as a gesture against jews he never even tried to dismiss them or that other meaning. It is now used as an anti-jew salute and he is contempt with that, regardless of what the gesture originally meant.

I have seen and owned plenty of shows of Dieudonné (up to "Mahmoud") so I guess I could be considered a fan and I can tell you the gesture is in no ways an anti-jew salute. People can use any salute to make it their own kinda thing.

I think Dieudonné goes too far, doesn't know when to stop and dug himself too much into the jewish hate speech masqueraded as a joke knowingly fully it's his money maker now.
The shit that he says nowadays is not funny and I think people should just ignore it, but it seems M.Valls has a personal vendetta against this guy so we'll see how it goes :/

In any case, this Charlie Hebdo thing is a shitstorm. Looking at the reaction from muslim authorities and some countries right now, all this unity march seems pretty much bullshit to me. And fuck the Senegalese government for banning the journal.

 

[ibyea]

I don't think the arrest was warranted. I am for having laws against hate speech, but one has got to draw the line somewhere. It was stupid and vile, but that alone shouldn't qualify one to get arrested.

 

[jorma]

Again, if you can't see the difference between publishing satirical cartoons and stating you agree with a terrorist, you really should brush up on your knowledge of free speech.

I'm pretty knowledgable on the subject. You are defending this by stating "it's totally different, because reasons", but the truth is that they are both being offensive, but to different people.

And you entire interpretation of Charlie Hedbo cartoons vs Dieudonne-facebook posts "one is just satire, the other is being hateful" just suggests that you're taking sides and saying that you're only prepared to accept free speech if they aren't offending you and your sensibilites.

Calling it illegal because it's an "apology of terrorism" is just how the double standard is being rationalised. It's just as much satire as some of the worst charlie hedbo cartoons. You could easily say "they're not fooling anyone, we know what they really think" about both of them.

 

[neorej]

I'm pretty knowledgable on the subject. You are defending this by stating "it's totally different, because reasons", but the truth is that they are both being offensive, but to different people.

And you entire interpretation of Charlie Hedbo cartoons vs Dieudonne-facebook posts "one is just satire, the other is being hateful" just suggests that you're taking sides and saying that you're only prepared to accept free speech if they aren't offending you and your sensibilites.

Calling it illegal because it's an "apology of terrorism" is just how the double standard is being rationalised. It's just as much satire as some of the worst charlie hedbo cartoons. You could easily say "they're not fooling anyone, we know what they really think" about both of them.

Here's the catch though, neither were offensive to me, so that kind of nullifies that point.

Also, you are equalizing "offensive" with "condoning violence and acts of terror". You'd have a point if Charlie Hebdo was a notoriously anti-islam, anti-immigration paper, showing cartoons that approve of the structural murdering of Palestine citizens in Gaza. Then, and only then, would Charlie's speech be somewhat equal to Dieudonne's speech.

But the fact is that Charlie Hebdo was pro-immigration, pro-integration and anti-racism. They'd point and laugh at everything as much as they did with Islam. They were even anti-violence. They had cartoons that pointed out the idiocy of bombing Gaza strip by Israel as a reaction to a couple of kids throwing rocks. To be clear; they made fun of Israel.

No, being offensive and being hateful are two different things. Not "because reasons", but because it's a fact like dirt is not the same as fruit.

 

[Apt101]

Perhaps they're taking his entire history of hateful speech into account, and will suggest to the court that this latest is not only hate speech but a tacit endorsement of terrorism and murder, and an attempt to incite further violence.

 

[Cloudy]

this guy is an asshole antisemite cunt but this arrest is a little too much

edit : also people here need to understand that free speech has a limit, hate speech takes over free speech.

There is no such thing as criminal penalties for hate speech in a society that truly respects free speech. This is ridiculous and hilariously hypocritical given recent events in France...

 

[SmokyDave]

It's remarkable that people don't seem to recognise the double standard that's being applied here. If you are defending the right of Charlie Hedbo to publish their offensive cartoons (and you should be) you should be defending the right of Diedonne to post equally offensive posts on his facebook.

And if you only defend Charlie Hedbo, because their content isn't offensive to you, well then you aren't really "Charlie" after all.

This is pretty much how I feel. I don't care if there's enough wriggle room in the law to class his post as hate speech or supporting terrorism or whatever, it smells rotten and smacks of double standards.

 

[Herb Alpert]

All this is giving him more advertising.

Just ignore this man.

If you choose not to, visit one his web sites, Quenel +.

You will find some truly interesting conspirationist shit, some "anti sionnist" (I personnaly would say antisemite, but he seems to prefer the former) bullshit and even some truly marvelous neo nazi documentary movies (about Oradour sur Glane, a famous civil slaughter during WW2).

And the man that loathes the "system" is having promotions too, if you want to buy T-Shirts, beach sandals or small figurines of him.

He used to be funny, even really funny, now he is just a pathetic bitter antisemite poor hatemonger.

 

[Arksy]

I don't support the detention of Dieudonné, and I don't really like the content of Charlie Hebdo either, but the situation isn't really the same in both cases. Mainly, there is no law in France against offending people. Dieudonné isn't accused of being offensive, he's accused (and not condemned yet) of "hate speech", or more exactly "apology of terrorrism".

In short :
Charlie Hebdo mocks religions (among others)
Dieudonné implies his support of an anti-semitic murderer

While I don't think the latter deserves detention (especially because it's mostly implied, although it doesn't fool anybody), it is not the same thing as simple satire.

Here's the catch though, neither were offensive to me, so that kind of nullifies that point.

Also, you are equalizing "offensive" with "condoning violence and acts of terror". You'd have a point if Charlie Hebdo was a notoriously anti-islam, anti-immigration paper, showing cartoons that approve of the structural murdering of Palestine citizens in Gaza. Then, and only then, would Charlie's speech be somewhat equal to Dieudonne's speech.

But the fact is that Charlie Hebdo was pro-immigration, pro-integration and anti-racism. They'd point and laugh at everything as much as they did with Islam. They were even anti-violence. They had cartoons that pointed out the idiocy of bombing Gaza strip by Israel as a reaction to a couple of kids throwing rocks. To be clear; they made fun of Israel.

No, being offensive and being hateful are two different things. Not "because reasons", but because it's a fact like dirt is not the same as fruit.

You don't seem to understand that looking at the content of the speech is the first mistake. Either something is speech, in which case it's protected, or it's not. It's a one step process. Is it political speech? Yes or no. It doesn't matter if one is satire and the other is justifying terrorist attacks, it's still speech, especially if it has a political nature. If it's advocating a political proposition of any kind, it's speech and therefore protected. If you impose any limits to the advocacy of political belief, it's not free. Pure and simple.

If you want to put limits on speech, feel free, it's your democracy and you're allowed to make whatever laws you want. That doesn't mean we can't criticise you for being as bad as Turkey or Russia for imprisoning people for their political beliefs. It doesn't mean we can't point out absurd hypocrisy of claiming that your country is a liberal democracy that promotes freedom of speech all the while jailing people for thought crimes. There is no objective difference between journalists in Turkey getting arrested for writing an anti-government article and a comedian in France getting arrested for being torn between his religion and his country.

 

[Kenshin001]

You don't seem to understand that looking at the content of the speech is the first mistake. Either something is speech, in which case it's protected, or it's not. It's a one step process. Is it political speech? Yes or no. It doesn't matter if one is satire and the other is justifying terrorist attacks, it's still speech, especially if it has a political nature. If it's advocating a political proposition of any kind, it's speech and therefore protected. If you impose any limits to the advocacy of political belief, it's not free. Pure and simple.

If you want to put limits on speech, feel free, it's your democracy and you're allowed to make whatever laws you want. That doesn't mean we can't criticise you for being as bad as Turkey or Russia for imprisoning people for their political beliefs. It doesn't mean we can't point out absurd hypocrisy of claiming that your country is a liberal democracy that promotes freedom of speech all the while jailing people for thought crimes. There is no objective difference between journalists in Turkey getting arrested for writing an anti-government article and a comedian in France getting arrested for being torn between his religion and his country.

You were doing well until that last line. Please don't try to sugarcoat facts. This is what you should have said:

There is no objective difference between journalists in Turkey getting arrested for writing an anti-government article and a comedian in France getting arrested for condoning acts of violent terrorism which resulted in the deaths of 17 innocent people.

Argue they are both worthy of defence all you like, but to put those people criticizing their government in the same basket as someone glorifying terrorism is an insult to the Turkish journalists.

 

[Arksy]

You were doing well until that last line. Please don't try to sugarcoat facts. This is what you should have said:



Argue they are both worthy of defence all you like, but to put those people criticizing their government in the same basket as someone glorifying terrorism is an insult to the Turkish journalists.

But I'm not, that's my reading of it.

He said, as far as I can tell because I haven't seen the original facebook post;

“Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly.”

If he said, "Tonight as far as I'm concerned, I feel like Amedy Coulibaly", then I'd agree. He didn't say that, he said Charlie Coulibaly. My reading is that he feels torn between the two, unless there's something I'm missing? Why say Charlie? There's obviously something else going on, feel free to fill me in because I have no idea how that could possibly be read as a concrete statement condoning the act.

Argue they are both worthy of defence all you like, but to put those people criticizing their government in the same basket as someone glorifying terrorism is an insult to the Turkish journalists.

I'm happy to edit if you wish, for all difference it makes to me. My whole argument is that you shouldn't make a distinction.

 

[Bossun]

Some more precision:

Dieudonné justified his pun, saying he felt like charlie, because as an artist that has been ban to practiced he felt the whole "hypocrisy" of the French "free speech".
He feel Coulibaly because he also has been branded, and in my opinion rightly so, anti-semitic.
Now France is complex in regard to its free speech and hate speech and glorification speech laws.
But his explanation kinda made sense.

Also, what you need to know is that the guy is pretty elusive on his religion, sometime christian, sometime muslim, he even said at one point he was "christian-muslim".

Anyway the guy was funny, now he just try too hard to shock and he is truly stuck on his hate of jews, ans can be dangerous because he does have a lot of influence on his quite numerous fans.