Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Je Suis Charlie

charliehebdo.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 292 posts

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#231

Post by cbd1984 »

_almosnow wrote: post #209

I honestly want to know how is it allowed for someone to humiliate and make fun of something that is sacred to other people/culture. 'Free speech' I know, but when does someone's right to express themselves ends? Doesn't (or shouldn't) it has its limits? There are many other instances where you can't get away with something just because it is free speech. How come guys like Julian Assange are not protected under 'fre…

> I honestly want to know how is it allowed for someone to humiliate and make fun of something that is sacred to other people/culture.

Because then claiming offense becomes a sword, not a shield, and can be used to shut down legitimate criticism.

For example, saying "There is no honor in honor killings" can be very offensive and humiliating in the wrong crowd, but it is nevertheless a discussion which needs to be held anywhere honor killings take place.

Similarly, there are disingenuous morons in my country who claim all criticism of Israeli policy is anti-semitism. That can't possibly be considered valid. If it was, nobody could criticize Israel, which is obviously what the morons want, but a free society can't allow that.

> How come guys like Julian Assange are not protected under 'free speech'? How about people who sign NDA's?

You can't use "Free speech" as a way to get around other laws, including contract law in the case of NDAs.

> How come it would be heavily criticized (and probably illegal) for a newspaper to start running weekly cartoons where they make fun of the black population in America, depicting them with the all the token representations and slurs that are now widely accepted as 'racist'?

The KKK is a legal organization in America. David Duke is a legal human being, and is legally considered a human being despite evidence to the contrary, and legally has the right to say everything he's said, past and present.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke

And then there's the Westboro Baptist Church:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

I fear your understanding of American free speech laws is quite flawed.

> Are there some written rules about this

Yes. A lot of them are in court cases, where judges have made decisions which bind on other judges. This is how a Common Law system works.

> or is it just the result of how things are perceived by the majority of the public (i.e. what we like vs what we don't)?

No. If it worked like this, the Westboro Baptist Church, for example, wouldn't be legal.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#232

Post by cbd1984 »

_almosnow wrote: post #219
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 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…

> 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. Can you explain, please? I'm honestly interested in how you think American free speech law works.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#233

Post by _almosnow »

cbd1984 wrote: post #232
_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…

> 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. Can you explain, please? I'm honestly interested in how you think American free speech law works.

Well, for what I've read in the past hour or so, apparently free speech does not apply when the subject is of an offensive matter, but to be clear I have no idea where to draw the line.

Do you have any better insight?

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#234

Post by _almosnow »

cbd1984 wrote: post #231
_almosnow wrote: post #209

I honestly want to know how is it allowed for someone to humiliate and make fun of something that is sacred to other people/culture. 'Free speech' I know, but when does someone's right to express themselves ends? Doesn't (or shouldn't) it has its limits? There are many other instances where you can't get away with something just because it is free speech. How come guys like Julian Assange are not protected under 'fre…

> I honestly want to know how is it allowed for someone to humiliate and make fun of something that is sacred to other people/culture. Because then claiming offense becomes a sword, not a shield, and can be used to shut down legitimate criticism. For example, saying "There is no honor in honor killings" can be very offensive and humiliating in the wrong crowd, but it is nevertheless a discussion which needs to be hel…

Thanks for the explanation and the examples. I'm currently reading about hate speech cases and laws, definitely learning a lot. Apparently, even hate speech is protected as long as it is not thought to be the cause for an 'imminent danger'. Do you think that a terrorist threat could (or should) classify as an 'imminent danger' when it escalates to situations like these?

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#235

Post by mtimjones »

meapix wrote: post #187
vixen99 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trick those kids? Seems there are a lot of kids. http://gatesofvienna.net/2015/01/what-if-these-lone-wolves-w...

Bush killing thousands of people is not in there. Oh I see, it's not on the name of Christianity. French colonialism traces are still felt in many countries, oh I see, it's not on the name of Christianity. Who gives a crap about in the name of what, it's a crime.

Why do people still talk about Bush, when Obama is the current U.S. president, and routinely kills people with drone strikes?

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#236

Post by cbd1984 »

_almosnow wrote: post #234
cbd1984 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I honestly want to know how is it allowed for someone to humiliate and make fun of something that is sacred to other people/culture. Because then claiming offense becomes a sword, not a shield, and can be used to shut down legitimate criticism. For example, saying "There is no honor in honor killings" can be very offensive and humiliating in the wrong crowd, but it is nevertheless a discussion which needs to be hel…

Thanks for the explanation and the examples. I'm currently reading about hate speech cases and laws, definitely learning a lot. Apparently, even hate speech is protected as long as it is not thought to be the cause for an 'imminent danger'. Do you think that a terrorist threat could (or should) classify as an 'imminent danger' when it escalates to situations like these?

Terroristic threats are already illegal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat

Again, though, that's things similar to "I'm going to bomb your store" or "I have placed a hidden explosive near your offices" or similar; things that, even if they're false, cause other people to have to take them seriously and waste time and resources.

In short, a terroristic threat doesn't insult someone, it makes that person think some specific terroristic action is going to be performed in the immediate future. It's not really that fine of a line. I'm fully in favor of those threats being illegal.

In short:

Legal: "[Those people] are stupid and smell bad."

Legal: "[Those people] shouldn't live around here."

Still Legal: "If [those people] don't move, bad things will happen."

Yes, Legal: "I have a gun. [Those people] shouldn't mess with me. I have ever so many firearms. I love to shoot, especially [those people]."

Legal: "It is time for [our people] to kill [those people]."

Not Legal: "Tonight, we all move in on [those people] and kill them."

Not Legal: "There is a bomb in the [Those People] Recreational Center."

The line isn't insults. It isn't even threats as such. It's threats of immediate violence.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#237

Post by cbd1984 »

_almosnow wrote: post #233
cbd1984 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Can you explain, please? I'm honestly interested in how you think American free speech law works.

Well, for what I've read in the past hour or so, apparently free speech does not apply when the subject is of an offensive matter, but to be clear I have no idea where to draw the line. Do you have any better insight?

Just to consolidate our discussions:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8854880

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#238

Post by pvaldes »

RivieraKid wrote: post #72
mercurial wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, at a time like this it is important not to forget that the last major terrorist attack in Europe was instigated by a fundamentalist christian norwegian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik Sure. And there were also numerous bombings and attacks in Europe by left-wing extremists during the "years of lead". That said, the difference between Breivik and these guys is just the beard length. Right…

The difference is that religion didn't play a role in the motivation behind Breivik's attack.

Upvoted because you have the right to think this, even if is wrong. That is how freedom of speech works...

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#239

Post by kbarre123 »

There's nothing to discuss, really. I'm not going to convince you. You're not going to convince me. Steve's not going to convince Akbar, and Akbar's not going to convince Omkar. Nobody's ever read an internet comment and thought, "Holy shit, @deeznutz420 is right. My religion IS a total crock of shit! Well I'll be..." What happened is terrible. It'll happen again, and no amount of pontificating or "nation-building" or foreign aide is going to change the fact that some people hate other people because they're different because their parents raised them to be that way. This is not a religious thing, it's a human thing. Whites in the US killed black people all the time, not too long ago mind you, simply because they were different. And they worshipped the same freaking god!

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#240

Post by _almosnow »

cbd1984 wrote: post #236
_almosnow wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the explanation and the examples. I'm currently reading about hate speech cases and laws, definitely learning a lot. Apparently, even hate speech is protected as long as it is not thought to be the cause for an 'imminent danger'. Do you think that a terrorist threat could (or should) classify as an 'imminent danger' when it escalates to situations like these?

Terroristic threats are already illegal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat Again, though, that's things similar to "I'm going to bomb your store" or "I have placed a hidden explosive near your offices" or similar; things that, even if they're false, cause other people to have to take them seriously and waste time and resources. In short, a terroristic threat doesn't insult someone, it makes that person…

About the terrorist threats, I was referring to, for example, if a terrorist group says "we are going to do ... if you publish that thing" (like what already happened), wouldn't that qualify as 'immediate violence' in order to stop the publication? or does the immediate violence threat has to be something implicit within the published message.

Btw, thanks, those examples are awesome.

Post reply on HN