Don't know what to think about the Burqa law in France.

[infinix]

You don't know what to think ?
Easy, do what most of the French people do : don't care

I'm trying to discuss the inherent problem here. How should we interpret laws that enforce social and gender equality against the religious and cultural traditions of a select group of people?

 

[Shaytan]

You don't know what to think ?
Easy, do what most of the French people do : don't care

I'm trying to discuss the inherent problem here. How should we interpret laws that enforce social and gender equality against the religious and cultural traditions of a select group of people?

As one of the applications of French secularism. But several "discussions" I had here about that proved that's a difficult concept to explain to foreigners.

 

[Subcommander R.]

Again, educate yourself. Of course the law regulates speech with respect to time, place, and manner. But the First Amendment protects content.

I'm fairly certain that there are some very specific regulation on content as well. If you voice desire to assassinate the president, if you provide specific instructions on robbing a bank, if you give out detailed plans on building a bomb, etc... the chances are you will be flagged by the FBI and someone will be watching you very closely if not knocking down your door. Legally.

First Amendment protection stops at violating the interests of the State, and the interests of the State has been expanding little by little over the years as people find ways to exploit the First Amendment.

Wrong. Public protests are against the interest of the state. Free press is against the interest of the state. The state's interest does not carry weight.

The determining factors (assuming now laws are being broken/encouraged to be broken) on what speech is not protected are public decency and incitement. The classic example of 'yelling fire in a crowded theater.' By American standards wearing a veil is NOT indecent, NOT incitement, and NOT criminal.

 

[lurok]

As one of the applications of French secularism. But several "discussions" I had here about that proved that's a difficult concept to explain to foreigners.

I genuinely wish you would. As one of the few citizens of the country/laws being debated here...

 

[infinix]

Wrong. Public protests are against the interest of the state. Free press is against the interest of the state. The state's interest does not carry weight.

You get jailed if you hold a public protest without first applying for a permit. This is true even in the US.

Free press is only against the interest of the State if the State is under a totalitarian or dictatorship or an oppressive government. Free press is working out pretty well in democratically elected governments.

When I say violating the interests of the State, I am talking about content that is specifically geared to instruct and incite chaos and mayhem. These types of content are NOT protected under the First Amendment.

 

[Shaytan]

As one of the applications of French secularism. But several "discussions" I had here about that proved that's a difficult concept to explain to foreigners.

I genuinely wish you would. As one of the few citizens of the country/laws being debated here...

No, I've done that several times before, I'm not going to do that again.

 

[Myasishchev]

The fact that Nazis can have a parade in Skokie, Illinois, is what makes it possible for LGBT activists to hold a rally in Boston, Massachusetts.

With respect that is crap. The law and everyone else is perfectly capable of discerning people preaching hatred from people demonstrating for their rights.

They sure seem like they are, banning Booberry dresses in France, and swastikas in video games. That's completely rational and necessary to maintain societal order. Except it's not: it's state-sanctioned enmity with Islam and petty self-flagellation over the crimes of people mostly long dead, respectively.

But really, that highlights the problem: in a democracy, or any human system, discerning people are not necessarily or even often the ones who achieve power. Thus when discerning people do have the temporary advantage, they frame laws defending the minority from the majority which are then made very difficult for the majority to change.

If you don't have a fundamental law that recognizes the freedom of Nazis to march, there is no fundamental law that recognizes anyone else's freedom to do so, either. All you have is a privilege, revocable at any time by an adversarial legislature, not a right.

Beyond that, silencing any speech or merely expressive conduct is so deeply offensive to human dignity that no government should have the power to do it. It's as basic to liberty as the presumption of innocence or the right to take part in the political process.

 

[lurok]

As one of the applications of French secularism. But several "discussions" I had here about that proved that's a difficult concept to explain to foreigners.

I genuinely wish you would. As one of the few citizens of the country/laws being debated here...

No, I've done that several times before, I'm not going to do that again.

Thank you. And I respect your position (though saddened).

 

[bluedana]

Wrong. Public protests are against the interest of the state. Free press is against the interest of the state. The state's interest does not carry weight.

You get jailed if you hold a public protest without first applying for a permit. This is true even in the US.

Free press is only against the interest of the State if the State is under a totalitarian or dictatorship or an oppressive government. Free press is working out pretty well in democratically elected governments.

When I say violating the interests of the State, I am talking about content that is specifically geared to instruct and incite chaos and mayhem. These types of content are NOT protected under the First Amendment.

infinix, that is what I mean by time, place, and manner. The content -- the idea -- is protected by the First Amendment, but you cannot say it any old way, at any time, or in any place. Those things are subject to limitation. I can disagree with the President, for example, even call him names, but I cannot threaten him -- that's a federal crime. Likewise, I can publish my opinion about someone, but I cannot commit libel (untruth), and expect that to be protected. Speech that is "specifically geared to instruct and incite chaos and mayhem" is unprotected because of the manner in which they are offered, but the idea underlying them is protected.

In other words, you cannot be prosecuted for expressing an opinion, but you can be prosecuted for the way you express it.

And, really, being born and raised in the US is no guarantee that one has even the least bit of understanding of the Constitution.

 

[Subcommander R.]

Wrong. Public protests are against the interest of the state. Free press is against the interest of the state. The state's interest does not carry weight.

You get jailed if you hold a public protest without first applying for a permit. This is true even in the US.

Free press is only against the interest of the State if the State is under a totalitarian or dictatorship or an oppressive government. Free press is working out pretty well in democratically elected governments.

When I say violating the interests of the State, I am talking about content that is specifically geared to instruct and incite chaos and mayhem. These types of content are NOT protected under the First Amendment.

Yet if the state denies you a permit, the courts will invariably side with YOU the citizen. They aren't allowed to pick and choose what gets protested, only arrange a time for safety purposes.

And believe me, secrecy of information is greatly undermined by free press. And the state would be much happier knowing leaks wouldn't get broadcast on television.

As to 'geared to incite chaos and mayhem,' I already said that is the exception to free speech. You make the mistake of equating 'the state's interest' with public safety. Two very different things.

 

[infinix]

infinix, that is what I mean by time, place, and manner. The content -- the idea -- is protected by the First Amendment, but you cannot say it any old way, at any time, or in any place. Those things are subject to limitation. I can disagree with the President, for example, even call him names, but I cannot threaten him -- that's a federal crime. Likewise, I can publish my opinion about someone, but I cannot commit libel (untruth), and expect that to be protected. Speech that is "specifically geared to instruct and incite chaos and mayhem" is unprotected because of the manner in which they are offered, but the idea underlying them is protected.

In other words, you cannot be prosecuted for expressing an opinion, but you can be prosecuted for the way you express it.

And, really, being born and raised in the US is no guarantee that one has even the least bit of understanding of the Constitution.

Wait a second. Are you saying that a threat is a form of expression rather than the content of expressions? It doesn't really matter which way you choose to expression the desire to assassinate the president, as soon as you express the threat, you will be arrested.

I guess we can discuss the different between form and content. I always thought forms of expressions are things like newspaper, books, signs, slogans, blogs, songs, paintings, posters, video, etc. Whereas the content of expressions is what is actually contained within the form of expressions. A threat is what is contained within the forms of expression.

Also, ideas, as long as they remain in your head, do not need any protection since no one else knows about it. It is when the idea is expressed, through whatever means, then it because necessary to either protect the idea or not protect the idea. How the idea is expressed doesn't really matter. It is the idea that is being judged, not the way it is expressed.

Unless you can think of an example where the idea of building a bomb to blow up the Capital can be expressed in a way that the idea is protected. (speech by a crazy person already locked up in an asylum notwithstanding.)

 

[lurok]

And the state would be much happier knowing leaks wouldn't get broadcast on television.

As to 'geared to incite chaos and mayhem,' I already said that is the exception to free speech. You make the mistake of equating 'the state's interest' with public safety. Two very different things.

As we are not directionless societies, we appoint/anoint persons to guide us (for good and bad). And sometimes they make decisions that 'leaks' (can you imagine if REAL aliens) not in public interest at time (will come out in long run). We are the state, so if they decide public safety issue, happy to go along with. Sometimes I despair at cynicism of those who believe we can exist in democratic system yet not expect those who we've subsumed powers to not act in certain ways. Personally, I see nothing wrong with the benign dictatorship.

 

[infinix]

As to 'geared to incite chaos and mayhem,' I already said that is the exception to free speech. You make the mistake of equating 'the state's interest' with public safety. Two very different things.

I suppose I did. I was operating under the impression that it is in the interest of the State to provide public safety.

On the topic of freedom of information, my personal opinion is that it serves the public no benefit to force the government to disclose absolutely everything it is doing, especially when it involved foreign matters. The world is a scary place and sometimes the gov't needs to do scary things to protect its own people.

Remember how Obama came into the office promising complete transparency? How did that worked out? Free press does not require complete transparency. Looking at how often the press eviscerates any administration, it is obvious we have a free press in the United States.

 

[bluedana]

infinix, that is what I mean by time, place, and manner. The content -- the idea -- is protected by the First Amendment, but you cannot say it any old way, at any time, or in any place. Those things are subject to limitation. I can disagree with the President, for example, even call him names, but I cannot threaten him -- that's a federal crime. Likewise, I can publish my opinion about someone, but I cannot commit libel (untruth), and expect that to be protected. Speech that is "specifically geared to instruct and incite chaos and mayhem" is unprotected because of the manner in which they are offered, but the idea underlying them is protected.

In other words, you cannot be prosecuted for expressing an opinion, but you can be prosecuted for the way you express it.

And, really, being born and raised in the US is no guarantee that one has even the least bit of understanding of the Constitution.

Wait a second. Are you saying that a threat is a form of expression rather than the content of expressions? It doesn't really matter which way you choose to expression the desire to assassinate the president, as soon as you express the threat, you will be arrested.

I guess we can discuss the different between form and content. I always thought forms of expressions are things like newspaper, books, signs, slogans, blogs, songs, paintings, posters, video, etc. Whereas the content of expressions is what is actually contained within the form of expressions. A threat is what is contained within the forms of expression.

Also, ideas, as long as they remain in your head, do not need any protection since no one else knows about it. It is when the idea is expressed, through whatever means, then it because necessary to either protect the idea or not protect the idea. How the idea is expressed doesn't really matter. It is the idea that is being judged, not the way it is expressed.

Unless you can think of an example where the idea of building a bomb to blow up the Capital can be expressed in a way that the idea is protected. (speech by a crazy person already locked up in an asylum notwithstanding.)

Sure, but I'll use an example I've actually seen. I can say, all pedophiles should be lined up and shot because they're a menace to society. That's a protected opinion. If I say, Mr. Pedophile, you're a menace to society and I'm going to blow your head off, that's a threat (a crime that is not protected). If I say, Hey, everyone, this pedophile is a menace to society, let's blow his head off, it's incitement to violence (also a crime that is not protected).

 

[infinix]

Sure, but I'll use an example I've actually seen. I can say, all pedophiles should be lined up and shot because they're a menace to society. That's a protected opinion. If I say, Mr. Pedophile, you're a menace to society and I'm going to blow your head off, that's a threat (a crime that is not protected). If I say, Hey, everyone, this pedophile is a menace to society, let's blow his head off, it's incitement to violence (also a crime that is not protected).

I see what you mean. The example you cited called for specific threats made against a specific person, right? The content of the specific threat is different from the content of a general opinion. As you alluded to, you can express these two different contents in the exact same fashion and receive two different results.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I can't imagine that Muslim women living in France only recently began wearing burqas and/or niqabs.

Actually, I think that's exactly what is happening, as most Muslims in France have always been from Algeria and Tunisia, where burqa and niqab are almost unheard of. Only very recently there has been an influx of Afghanis and Pakistanis. Just for information.

I'll tell you exactly what you should think about it.

Well, good to know you behave exactly in the same way the entity you are criticizing in the very same post.

To be fair he said he didn't know what to think about it so I told him.

I don't think it works like that.

 

[lurok]

If I say, Mr. Pedophile, you're a menace to society and I'm going to blow your head off, that's a threat (a crime that is not protected). If I say, Hey, everyone, this pedophile is a menace to society, let's blow his head off, it's incitement to violence (also a crime that is not protected).

Those are both clearly criminal actions. So a bit of a straw man argument. Personally, I find the first argument you presented - I can say, all pedophiles should be lined up and shot because they're a menace to society. That's a protected opinion- although not criminal/illegal - is offensive and counter to principals of free speech. No section of society, whatever their 'moral' outlook, should be "lined up against a wall and shot". Replace 'paedophiles' with any religious/racial/minority/marginalised group. Protected opinion? Good god Any media outlet in most of Europe would regard such comment as offensive and abhorrent, if not techically illegal.

 

[Myasishchev]

If I say, Mr. Pedophile, you're a menace to society and I'm going to blow your head off, that's a threat (a crime that is not protected). If I say, Hey, everyone, this pedophile is a menace to society, let's blow his head off, it's incitement to violence (also a crime that is not protected).

Those are both clearly criminal actions. So a bit of a straw man argument. Personally, I find the first argument you presented - although not criminal/illegal - offensive and counter to principals of free speech.

Actually, the first argument strikes me as advocating a change in law. This is exactly what is meant by political speech, generally considered the most valuable and sacrosanct form of speech, because stifling political discussion is the first step to tyranny.

For the sake of argument, I'll assume that it's hateful, mean-spirited speech, but it's still political speech. You'd want to have your say, too, don't you?

 

[bluedana]

Sure, but I'll use an example I've actually seen. I can say, all pedophiles should be lined up and shot because they're a menace to society. That's a protected opinion. If I say, Mr. Pedophile, you're a menace to society and I'm going to blow your head off, that's a threat (a crime that is not protected). If I say, Hey, everyone, this pedophile is a menace to society, let's blow his head off, it's incitement to violence (also a crime that is not protected).

I see what you mean. The example you cited called for specific threats made against a specific person, right? The content of the specific threat is different from the content of a general opinion. As you alluded to, you can express these two different contents in the exact same fashion and receive two different results.

First Amendment law is both incredibly complex and incredibly simple. Our government is constantly finessing that line. Try to control too much, and you've violated someone's rights. Control too little, and it can become a public safety issue.

lurok, honestly, of course the second and third expressions are clearly illegal. That would be the point. The point of view (content) is the same, but the manner (or the time or the place) in which one expresses it removes Constitutional protection. I really don't know how to put it more simply than that.

 

[lurok]

lurok, honestly, of course the second and third expressions are clearly illegal. That would be the point. The point of view (content) is the same, but the manner (or the time or the place) in which one expresses it removes Constitutional protection. I really don't know how to put it more simply than that.

I do appreciate that, and you do make that clear Where my personal opinion diverges with first amendment/constitution is the first example you cited (protected opinion). But this is simply debateable issue as I am not US citizen.