( ) 1 Vote
|
|
|
|
Christine Boutin, former leader of the small French Christian Democratic party, was today convicted on appeal of provoking hatred against the LGBT community with a magazine article published in 2014 in which she stated "homosexuality is an abomination and a sin that can never be condoned."
What can I say other than it's good to see justice being done, even if it was only a 5000 euro fine.
[Updated on: Wed, 02 November 2016 15:58] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13680
|
|
|
It seems a shame that the big hammer of the law has to be used instead of their being able to be influenced by education. I suspect the fine has hardened her heart, if it could be hardened further.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisR
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: Western US
Registered: October 2014
Messages: 136
|
|
|
I have to disagree with the French court. Freedom of Speech is either universal or it doesn't exist at all. Fining somebody for his opinion today simply means that the court can fine somebody for a different opinion tomorrow.
The situation would be different if the writer called for violence against a group or individual. That's wrong. But that does not seem to be the case here. It was the individual's opinion, not a call for unlawful action. Considering this was a case on appeal from an earlier ruling, it looks more like the "societal general consensus" had swung, so now it's time to be politically correct and hammer the speaker. That's not any form of democracy under which I would prefer to live.
The right to be wrong should be one of those so-called human rights we hear bandied about each day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13680
|
|
|
Freedom of Speech is a much talked about right, though it is unlikely to exist in the form that means that anyone may speak hatefully about anyone else. Having a right means you also have the responsibility to exercise that right with care. To speak your mind freely does not mean you have the right to hurt others by doing so. The others have the right not to be hurt by someone else's freedom of speech.
Regrettably, Freedom of Speech is often used as an excuse to do verbal or written harm. I doubt that is what the folk who suggested one has the right of freedom of speech had in mind when such rights were granted.
Having the right to be wrong is fine. But, if being wrong is also being hurtful, harmful to another individual or group, then that being wrong is worthy of censure, and, the greater the hurt or harm, assuming intent to hurt or harm, then the greater the censure.
I suppose I could invoke Godwin's Law in this discussion, but that would also cut both ways if I were to. I think, instead, one needs to consider what might best be called 'Common Decency', and consider both how to express strongly held opinions without harming others, and also how to show that some expressions of opinions cause genuine harm and request, nay, require, that they cease to be expressed in that manner.
It's a complex subject indeed,
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a thin line to draw between freedom of speech and inciting hatred of minority groups.
"On 31 December 2004, the National Assembly (France) approved an amendment to existing anti-discrimination legislation, making homophobic, sexist, racist, xenophobic etc. comments illegal. The maximum penalty of a €45,000 fine and/or 12 months imprisonment has been criticized by civil liberty groups such as Reporters Without Borders as a serious infringement on free speech. But the conservative government of President Jacques Chirac pointed to a rise in anti-gay violence as justification for the measure." (Wikipedia).
Ideally what I think all sane people want is to allow everyone to express whatever opinion they wish, but not in such a way that it incites hatred and promotes attacks on minority groups. There are sadly lots of examples of free speech were the end results are people being attacked and beaten, you only need to look at the Brexit campaign in the UK which led to increased attacks on foreigners living in the country.
So, yes, I support free speech, but not at any price, not at the cost of somebody being kicked and punched by morons who have listened to or read something by someone promoting hatred.
It's a tough question, free speech, where to draw the line. It's a similar question when it comes to democracy, personal liberty versus the need to combat terrorism. There are no easy answers and nobody gets it right all the time, but as Tim said, free speech carries with it responsibility and that responsibilty extends to what happens as a result of what you say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: Earth
Registered: April 2013
Messages: 268
|
|
|
Quote:ChrisR wrote on Wed, 02 November 2016 23:31I have to disagree with the French court. Freedom of Speech is either universal or it doesn't exist at all. Fining somebody for his opinion today simply means that the court can fine somebody for a different opinion tomorrow.
--
That's not exactly true, at least not in practice. Even in the U.S. with First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, freedom of speech is not 100% universal. That's why I can sue someone in civil court for what they say, under such concepts as "slander" and "defamation of character," and actually have a chance of winning. If what you say about me is something that I can not only prove is false, but has caused me harm in some way (and it doesn't even have to be physical harm - it can be financial harm, too), I can also use another part of the First Amendment to call for the government to provide me "a redress of grievances" (meaning the courts can make you compensate me financially for your words).
I don't have to be physically harmed by what someone else said, and no one has to riot or be called to any other sort of unlawful action, but I can still win if I can show my reputation has been damaged in certain ways by what someone else said about me. And it's something that's been recognized multiple times by the U.S. Supreme Court as being a fully constitutional right.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
