Je Suis Charlie

Post by sehr » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 12:16 AM UTC

waps wrote: post #212

sehr wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(No snark intended), just google it. For example the Wikipedia page for free speech in the US is pretty detailed, and covers a lot of the legislation regarding it. Lots of people have asked and answered this type of question over the years, and most of it's been documented!

I think maybe he meant from the perspective of muslims. That answer is here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Asma%27_bint_Marwan This is what makes this so difficult : muslims killing because of negative opinions on islam is something that is sanctioned by the religion, and that was practiced for over 15 centuries now. A very uncomfortable question is what muslim children in the west are taught on this question. I'm…

Post by mekoka » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 12:26 AM UTC

Techbrunch wrote: post #179

I hope they are not gonna use this as an excuse to pass new laws to increase surveillance.

Post by lotsofmangos » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 12:28 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #91

fennecfoxen wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even aside from the blatantly unreasonable people, consider the reasonable people who don't think that you should have that freedom of speech. Demographic trends present in Europe today make eventual change in public policy on the matter an increasingly realistic prospect. This is one of the underlying reasons behind the European right's distress about rising influence of Muslims, and a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment a…

Hang on: in england we had blasphemy laws that meant you could not do an equivalent of the mohamed cartoons using christ (those laws have recently gone); and we had racial discrimination laws which meant you could not have an equivalent of the mohamed cartoons using g*d. It's not some radical muslim fundamentalist conspiracy to extend these protections to muslims. (I am not saying it's the right thing to do. I think…

Post by _almosnow » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 12:36 AM UTC

schoen wrote: post #224

_almosnow wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see, when it comes down to the jurisdiction of the US the exceptions are clear enough. I see that Charlie Hebdo would have been in a lot of legal trouble if they were based on the US then. I don't know why I've tought that the law would be very similar in most of the world but it isn't, or apparently in France they were allowed to stay in business (although for what I've been reading they had been fined a few times…

The U.S. legal system is known as more tolerant of offensive speech than any European jurisdiction. I'm not quite sure where you're getting the inference that such speech is less protected in the U.S. than in France.

Post by baby » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 12:56 AM UTC