Tweet
Buenos Aires Herald, Argentine
Jan 11 2015
Threat to free speech isn't terror, it's the French gov't
By Jonathan Turley
The Washington Post (*)
It's not terrorists but the nation's restrictive laws on speech
Within an hour of the massacre at the headquarters of the Charlie
Hebdo newspaper, thousands of Parisians spontaneously gathered at the
Place de la Republique. Rallying beneath the monumental statues
representing Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, they chanted "Je suis
Charlie" ("I am Charlie") and "Charlie! Liberty!" It was a rare moment
of French unity that was touching and genuine.
Yet one could fairly ask what they were rallying around. The greatest
threat to liberty in France has come not from the terrorists who
committed such horrific acts this past week but from the French
themselves, who have been leading the Western world in a crackdown on
free speech.
Indeed, if the French want to memorialize those killed at Charlie
Hebdo, they could start by rescinding their laws criminalizing speech
that insults, defames or incites hatred, discrimination or violence on
the basis of religion, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, sex
or sexual orientation. These laws have been used to harass the
satirical newspaper and threaten its staff for years. Speech has been
conditioned on being used "responsibly" in France, suggesting that it
is more of a privilege than a right for those who hold controversial
views.
In 2006, after Charlie Hebdo reprinted controversial cartoons of the
prophet Muhammad that first appeared in a Danish newspaper, French
President Jacques Chirac condemned the publication and warned against
such "obvious provocations."
"Anything that can hurt the convictions of someone else, in particular
religious convictions, should be avoided," he said. "Freedom of
expression should be exercised in a spirit of responsibility."
The Paris Grand Mosque and the Union of French Islamic Organizations
sued the newspaper for insulting Muslims -- a crime that carries a fine
of up to 22,500 euros or six months' imprisonment. French courts
ultimately ruled in Charlie Hebdo's favour. But France's appetite for
speech control has only grown since then.
The cases have been wide-ranging and bizarre. In 2008, for example,
Brigitte Bardot was convicted for writing a letter to then-Interior
Minister Nicolas Sarkozy about how she thought Muslims and homosexuals
were ruining France. In 2011, fashion designer John Galliano was found
guilty of making anti-Semitic comments against at least three people
in a Paris café. In 2012, the government criminalized denial of the
Armenian genocide (a law later overturned by the courts, but Holocaust
denial remains a crime). In 2013, a French mother was sentenced for
"glorifying a crime" after she allowed her son, named Jihad, to go to
school wearing a shirt that said "I am a bomb." Last year, Interior
Minister Manuel Valls moved to ban performances by comedian Dieudonné
M'Bala M'Bala, declaring that he was "no longer a comedian" but was
rather an "anti-Semite and racist." It is easy to silence speakers who
spew hate or obnoxious words, but censorship rarely ends with those on
the margins of our society.
Notably, among the demonstrators this past week at the Place de la
République was Sasha Reingewirtz, president of the Union of Jewish
Students, who told NBC News, "We are here to remind [the terrorists]
that religion can be freely criticized." The Union of Jewish Students
apparently didn't feel as magnanimous in 2013, when it successfully
sued Twitter over posts deemed anti-Semitic. The student president at
the time dismissed objections from civil libertarians, saying the
social networking site was "making itself an accomplice and offering a
highway for racists and anti-Semites." The government declared the
tweets illegal, and a French court ordered Twitter to reveal the
identities of anti-Semitic posters.
Non-hate speeches
Recently, speech regulation in France has expanded into non-hate
speech, with courts routinely intervening in matters of opinion. For
example, last year, a French court fined blogger Caroline Doudet and
ordered her to change a headline to reduce its prominence on Google
for her negative review of a restaurant.
While France long ago got rid of its blasphemy laws, there is precious
little difference for speakers and authors in prosecutions for
defamation or hate speech. There may also be little difference
perceived by extremists, like those in Paris, who mete out their own
justice for speech the government defines as a crime. To them, this is
only a matter of degree in responding to what the government has
called unlawful provocations. As the radical Muslim cleric Anjem
Choudary wrote this past week, "Why in this case did the French
government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke
Muslims?"
It was the growing French intolerance of free speech that motivated
the staff of Charlie Hebdo -- and particularly its editor, Stéphane
Charbonnier -- who made fun of all religions with irreverent cartoons
and editorials. Charbonnier faced continuing threats, not just of
death from extremists but of criminal prosecution. In 2012, amid
international protests over an anti-Islamic film, Charlie Hebdo again
published cartoons of Muhammad. French Prime Minister Jean-Marc
Ayrault warned that freedom of speech "is expressed within the
confines of the law and under the control of the courts."
Charbonnier wasn't cowed -- by the government pressure, the public
protests or the inclusion of his name on a list of al-Qaeda targets.
In an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde, he echoed Mexican
revolutionary Emiliano Zapataand proclaimed, "I would rather die
standing than live on my knees." Carbonnier was the first person the
gunmen asked for in their attack on the office, and he was one of the
first to be killed.
Rolling back protections
The French, of course, have not been alone in rolling back protections
on free speech. Britain, Canada and other nations have joined them. We
have similar rumblings here in the United States. In 2009, the Obama
administration shockingly supported Muslim allies trying to establish
a new international blasphemy standard. And as secretary of state,
Hillary Clinton invited delegations to Washington to work on
implementing that standard and "to build those muscles" needed "to
avoid a return to the old patterns of division."
The future once belonged to free speech. It was the very touchstone of
Western civilization and civil liberties. A person cannot really
defame a religion or religious figures. The effort to redefine
criticism of religion as hate speech or defamation is precisely what
Charbonnier fought to resist. He once said that by lampooning Islam,
he hoped to make it "as banal as Catholicism" for the purposes of
social commentary and debate.
Charbonnier died, as he pledged, standing up rather than yielding. The
question is how many of those rallying in the Place de la République
are truly willing to stand with him. They need only to look more
closely at those three statues.
In the name of equality and fraternity, liberty has been curtailed in
France. The terrible truth is that it takes only a single gunman to
kill a journalist, but it takes a nation to kill a right.
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/179235/threat-to-free-speech-isn%E2%80%99t-terror-it%E2%80%99s-the-french-gov%E2%80%99t
From: Baghdasarian
Jan 11 2015
Threat to free speech isn't terror, it's the French gov't
By Jonathan Turley
The Washington Post (*)
It's not terrorists but the nation's restrictive laws on speech
Within an hour of the massacre at the headquarters of the Charlie
Hebdo newspaper, thousands of Parisians spontaneously gathered at the
Place de la Republique. Rallying beneath the monumental statues
representing Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, they chanted "Je suis
Charlie" ("I am Charlie") and "Charlie! Liberty!" It was a rare moment
of French unity that was touching and genuine.
Yet one could fairly ask what they were rallying around. The greatest
threat to liberty in France has come not from the terrorists who
committed such horrific acts this past week but from the French
themselves, who have been leading the Western world in a crackdown on
free speech.
Indeed, if the French want to memorialize those killed at Charlie
Hebdo, they could start by rescinding their laws criminalizing speech
that insults, defames or incites hatred, discrimination or violence on
the basis of religion, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, sex
or sexual orientation. These laws have been used to harass the
satirical newspaper and threaten its staff for years. Speech has been
conditioned on being used "responsibly" in France, suggesting that it
is more of a privilege than a right for those who hold controversial
views.
In 2006, after Charlie Hebdo reprinted controversial cartoons of the
prophet Muhammad that first appeared in a Danish newspaper, French
President Jacques Chirac condemned the publication and warned against
such "obvious provocations."
"Anything that can hurt the convictions of someone else, in particular
religious convictions, should be avoided," he said. "Freedom of
expression should be exercised in a spirit of responsibility."
The Paris Grand Mosque and the Union of French Islamic Organizations
sued the newspaper for insulting Muslims -- a crime that carries a fine
of up to 22,500 euros or six months' imprisonment. French courts
ultimately ruled in Charlie Hebdo's favour. But France's appetite for
speech control has only grown since then.
The cases have been wide-ranging and bizarre. In 2008, for example,
Brigitte Bardot was convicted for writing a letter to then-Interior
Minister Nicolas Sarkozy about how she thought Muslims and homosexuals
were ruining France. In 2011, fashion designer John Galliano was found
guilty of making anti-Semitic comments against at least three people
in a Paris café. In 2012, the government criminalized denial of the
Armenian genocide (a law later overturned by the courts, but Holocaust
denial remains a crime). In 2013, a French mother was sentenced for
"glorifying a crime" after she allowed her son, named Jihad, to go to
school wearing a shirt that said "I am a bomb." Last year, Interior
Minister Manuel Valls moved to ban performances by comedian Dieudonné
M'Bala M'Bala, declaring that he was "no longer a comedian" but was
rather an "anti-Semite and racist." It is easy to silence speakers who
spew hate or obnoxious words, but censorship rarely ends with those on
the margins of our society.
Notably, among the demonstrators this past week at the Place de la
République was Sasha Reingewirtz, president of the Union of Jewish
Students, who told NBC News, "We are here to remind [the terrorists]
that religion can be freely criticized." The Union of Jewish Students
apparently didn't feel as magnanimous in 2013, when it successfully
sued Twitter over posts deemed anti-Semitic. The student president at
the time dismissed objections from civil libertarians, saying the
social networking site was "making itself an accomplice and offering a
highway for racists and anti-Semites." The government declared the
tweets illegal, and a French court ordered Twitter to reveal the
identities of anti-Semitic posters.
Non-hate speeches
Recently, speech regulation in France has expanded into non-hate
speech, with courts routinely intervening in matters of opinion. For
example, last year, a French court fined blogger Caroline Doudet and
ordered her to change a headline to reduce its prominence on Google
for her negative review of a restaurant.
While France long ago got rid of its blasphemy laws, there is precious
little difference for speakers and authors in prosecutions for
defamation or hate speech. There may also be little difference
perceived by extremists, like those in Paris, who mete out their own
justice for speech the government defines as a crime. To them, this is
only a matter of degree in responding to what the government has
called unlawful provocations. As the radical Muslim cleric Anjem
Choudary wrote this past week, "Why in this case did the French
government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke
Muslims?"
It was the growing French intolerance of free speech that motivated
the staff of Charlie Hebdo -- and particularly its editor, Stéphane
Charbonnier -- who made fun of all religions with irreverent cartoons
and editorials. Charbonnier faced continuing threats, not just of
death from extremists but of criminal prosecution. In 2012, amid
international protests over an anti-Islamic film, Charlie Hebdo again
published cartoons of Muhammad. French Prime Minister Jean-Marc
Ayrault warned that freedom of speech "is expressed within the
confines of the law and under the control of the courts."
Charbonnier wasn't cowed -- by the government pressure, the public
protests or the inclusion of his name on a list of al-Qaeda targets.
In an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde, he echoed Mexican
revolutionary Emiliano Zapataand proclaimed, "I would rather die
standing than live on my knees." Carbonnier was the first person the
gunmen asked for in their attack on the office, and he was one of the
first to be killed.
Rolling back protections
The French, of course, have not been alone in rolling back protections
on free speech. Britain, Canada and other nations have joined them. We
have similar rumblings here in the United States. In 2009, the Obama
administration shockingly supported Muslim allies trying to establish
a new international blasphemy standard. And as secretary of state,
Hillary Clinton invited delegations to Washington to work on
implementing that standard and "to build those muscles" needed "to
avoid a return to the old patterns of division."
The future once belonged to free speech. It was the very touchstone of
Western civilization and civil liberties. A person cannot really
defame a religion or religious figures. The effort to redefine
criticism of religion as hate speech or defamation is precisely what
Charbonnier fought to resist. He once said that by lampooning Islam,
he hoped to make it "as banal as Catholicism" for the purposes of
social commentary and debate.
Charbonnier died, as he pledged, standing up rather than yielding. The
question is how many of those rallying in the Place de la République
are truly willing to stand with him. They need only to look more
closely at those three statues.
In the name of equality and fraternity, liberty has been curtailed in
France. The terrible truth is that it takes only a single gunman to
kill a journalist, but it takes a nation to kill a right.
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/179235/threat-to-free-speech-isn%E2%80%99t-terror-it%E2%80%99s-the-french-gov%E2%80%99t
From: Baghdasarian