12:09 - Freedom of speech in France
Dear all,
Freedom of speech in Europe is shrinking. Two stories this week saddened me:
Pro-ana web sites
France to crack down on "pro-anorexia" Web sites
Pro-ana web sites promote anorexia nervosa: an intense fear of gaining weight that often leads to self-starvation, self-induced vomiting, excessive exercise, and abuse of laxatives.
Before I say anything further: anorexia is bad. Period.
France's lower house of Parliament has responded to these web-sites by passing a bill that punishes any mass communication that promotes anorexia. (It has not been voted on by France's upper house of Parliament.)
I vigorously disagree with this approach. I strongly believe that the best response to bad information (like the pro-ana sites) is good information. Since young ladies are most interested in how to look good, create websites that demonstrate how good nutrition makes you look good. Create mass media that shows how the right amount of exercise makes you feel better. Show the long-term results of abusing laxatives or of self-inducing vomiting.
Brigitte Bardot and Muslim slurs
Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs
Brigitte Bardot said, "I am fed up with being under the thumb of this population [Muslims] which is destroying us, destroying our country and imposing its acts." on the occasion of Eid-al-Ahda.
As a consequence of this and other statements on her foundation's website, a French court has fined her Euro 15,000 and given her a 2 month suspended prison sentence.
Before I say anything further, discriminating against a religion is bad. Period. Discriminating against all Muslims is idiotic.
The article says:
French anti-racist groups complained last year about comments Bardot made about the Muslim feast of Eid al-Adha in a letter to President Nicolas Sarkozy that was later published by her foundation.
Muslims traditionally mark Eid al-Adha by slaughtering a sheep or another animal to commemorate the prophet Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son on God's orders.
In a quick glance through Brigitte's site, I could not find the exact quote. However, I found two of her statements on the same topic:
ABATTAGE RITUEL (II) (Google's translated version)
ABATTAGE RITUEL (I) (Google's translated version)
She vigorously opposes one part of the Muslim ritual of Eid-al-Adha: that of sacrificing sheep without even stunning them first.
This topic shouldn't be a matter of freedom of speech. This topic should be brought before the French equivalent of the Food and Drug Administration: what regulations apply to Muslims sacrificing for their religious festivals?
Personal opinion
In both of the above cases, the French courts or congress are trying to restrict freedom of speech. In both cases, they are for a good cause (health or minority rights). And in both cases, limiting freedom of speech is the wrong solution; I even guess (but cannot prove) that it would make the problem worse.
Even when I strongly oppose issues, I strongly support their right to speak.
These are my opinions. What do you think?
Take care, all.
This is an amazingly complicated issue, you just cannot measure this with the "US Ruler of Standards". Especially when laws regarding freedoms are different in each country.
I worry that Germany (and the world generally, including the USA) is so focused on preventing a revival of Nazism specifically that it's likely to miss the next important threat to liberalism, which will most likely come in a completely different guise. That adage about always fighting the last war with each new one applies in peacetime as well.
In addition, the lure of the forbidden paradoxically makes neo-Nazism more seductive when it's actually illegal. There's always going to be an asocial minority which delights in taboo ideas. If championing Hitler's ideas didn't reliably produce such satisfying outrage in their society, who knows what they turn to instead in order to épanter la bourgeoisie?
Nobody has a right-not-to-be-offended. If a minority or a religion like mohammedanism is suffifiently fragile that it can't take criticism (even hostile and antagonistic criticism) then it needs to get a life. I consider it wrong for the State to suppress the open expression of opinions, however inflammatory those opinions may be. Yes - this involves allowing nazis/racists/communists/anarchists/revo
Similarly, anorexics have - in my world - a fundamental human-right to fuck-up their lives. The comeback is that if they choose to harm themselves, I should not be expected to pay for their medical care/rehabilitation/social-security payments.
Do we have a right to stop people from marketing cigarettes and alcohol to kids? Other adults? Should unhealthy advice be given the same weight on the public stage as healthy advice?
You are advocating that they do have a right to market to whomever they want, and to allow untrue statements to be given the same weight as true statements. To not quell or sanction people for advocating violence, disseminating violence, or demonstrably harmful images or words.
Hasn't
As for having their rituals stopped "unfairly", doesn't the unfairness actually reside in the fact that, if I claim that I'm slaughtering an animal according to a "religious ritual", then I'm held to a much laxer standard of behaviour than if I'm slaughtering them for ordinary sale?
Is that wrong?
Does the French judiciary prosecute every single false claim that comes to its attention without regard to any alleged injury resulting from it? If so, when do they find time to do anything else?
"Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys"
LOL!
France is creating a legislative house of cards. Nevermind the futility of banning speech, when you get this many censorship laws no one knows what they can say and either shut up or flaunt the law to the point where the enforcement system is overhwelmed.
Pro-anorexia examples are like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. Good speech can't counteract repeated use of bad speech.
We fine people for swearing, we stop people when they suggest to kill or use violence, we protest when they market cigarettes to kids - why is marketing anorexia any different?
Freedom of speech doesn't necessarily include the freedom to harmful speech.
At what point does "freedom of speech" stop, and at what point does "harmful speech" start?
What kind of harm should be protected against? Physical harm? Monetary harm? Political harm? And how much harm?
Pro-anorexia examples are like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater.
Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater can cause physical harm, even to those not hearing the message. Pro-anorexia websites only cause physical harm to those who try following their idiotic ideas.
I would much rather have discussions like
Good speech can't counteract repeated use of bad speech.
I'm an optimist on this topic. I'd much rather have bad speech out in the open, where it can be countered, than have it underground.
Further, how does you define "bad speech"? Remember that plenty of Americans consider anything that questions their brand of Christianity to be "bad speech".
We fine people for swearing...
Yes, this happens, particularly on broadcast television.
...we stop people when they suggest to kill or use violence...
I agree with this restriction of freedom of speech.
...we protest when they market cigarettes to kids - why is marketing anorexia any different?
Aha.
1. The tobacco companies do market cigarettes. Heck, they spent $8.24 billion on advertising and promotional expenditures in one year.
2. I don't think that "marketing" is the right word for pro-ana websites. No large corporations are promoting anorexia. From what little I've seen (feel free to correct me!), those sites are created by desperate teenage women, who think that thin means beautiful.
In my opinion, they more need self-esteem than they need to be attacked by government.
At the point where you say your name, and that thingy on your arm goes haywire and zaps a big chunk out of that rock, and you realize... your name is a killing word.
Second case (animal cruelty): d'accord. (we agree on this one for rather closer reasons)
Edited at 2008-04-19 10:28 pm (UTC)
I can see a grey area around the pro-ana sites. It's a destructive behaviour, and it's geared primarily towards minors. I don't think their approach is going to work, and I think yours would be better - but I can certainly see why they're concerned The socialist tendency towards government regulation has long had too much reign in France, so that's their default position.
As for the anti-Eid stuff - if she's threatening Muslims directly, she deserved the fine. If she's not, it's a violation of free speech.
The only case where I disagree strongly with the opinions expressed in comments is in regard to Nazi propaganda. Support of Nazis has been illegal in Germany since WWII, and for a much better reason than anything in the pro-ana stuff. Support was so widespread, and opposition to the post-war occupation so widespread, that allowing it to exist openly in the public sphere was likely to lead to its rise to power again. It could not be granted the dignity of acceptance into public discourse, because it was too dangerous to Germany's continued existence as a nation in the post-war years. Now, we're at the point where a resurgence has been occurring. Making it legal again now would send the message that it was acceptable as political discourse, and with the baseline of support that still exists, the likelihood is that it would come back to power at least in some form.
In an ideal world, I'd be against censorship of Nazi propaganda on the same grounds that I'm against any other infringement of free speech. But given how much damage the Nazis under Hitler did, I can understand why they chose that route.
Most European extreme-right parties depend on protest votes to make any kind of significant showing. This is what carried the Freedomites to power in Austria in 1999. Once they actually made it into government, their maverick appeal faded. A mere three years later, they saw their share of the vote reduced to 10.2%. (In the 2004 EP elections, they only made 6%.)
So I stand by what I said above about illegalisation contributing to neo-Nazism's appeal rather than curbing it. Give this movements a crack at real power and watch their followers become disenchanted at the same time that their political opponents are re-envigourated.
As for the pro-ana site crackdown, it's a gray zone for me. It'd also impact the fashion industry, as ultra-skinny models would connote promotion of anorexia (especially the ones where you see their vertebrae and back ribs when they wear a low-backed dress, and I wish to all the gods I was exaggerating). I am left wondering if the middle ground is both promoting better habits, boosting self-esteem, and if legislation must be passed, demand minimum weight/height ratio limits on runway models as a matter of ensuring employee health. It's still rather extreme on one level, but in the French government, they could pass that and get away with it.
Good jour, Monsieur Chip Unicorn. How allez-vous?
Or maybe I'll just mispronounce all their words!
Ay-mezz vowse voy-er unn film ay-vec moy?
The French are inordinately proud of their food and their sauces.
Take a really greasy potato recipe from Belgium. Insist that it be served with a half-sugar, half-tomato base. Then rename it after the French.
The perfect revenge is to rename "Freedom Fries" as "French Fries"!