Freedom of speech? Not in France

[Fubar]

A woman has gone on trial in France for sending her 3 year old son to nursery school wearing a t-shirt with the words "I am a bomb" & "Born on 11 September" on it. Her son's name is Jihad and he was born on the 11th of September.

Is it in bad taste? Definitely yes. Protected speech? In the U.S., yes, but apparently not over there. Should she have known better? You're going to have a hard time proving otherwise.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21697037

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Apparently not a new law; "Les Vampires" was banned in France at some point in the past for glorifying crime.

 

Many places don't enjoy the same freedom of speech we do here in the US. Most countries in Europe, France included, have laws prohibiting Holocaust denial. In Germany there's a whole range of symbols (most related to Nazism) that you're not allowed to display.

 

It's interesting to see that in the case of the French Holocaust denial law, the UN Human Rights Committee has not exactly condemned it.

[Mike]

I'd venture a guess that this reference to a bomb would get the kid booted from many schools in the U.S. Not necessarily something I agree with, but there have been a number of cases of late where pretty innocuous stuff, like chewing a Pop-Tart into a shape resembling a pistol, has led to disciplinary action.

 

Also, understanding that "Jihad" has a broader meaning than what most folks believe, I'm nonetheless puzzled by that particular choice.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I'd venture a guess that this reference to a bomb would get the kid booted from many schools in the U.S. Not necessarily something I agree with, but there have been a number of cases of late where pretty innocuous stuff, like chewing a Pop-Tart into a shape resembling a pistol, has led to disciplinary action.

 

Also, understanding that "Jihad" has a broader meaning than what most folks believe, I'm nonetheless puzzled by that particular choice.

 

Booted from school? Absolutely. The US Constitution doesn't bar schools from enforcing a non-disruptive atmosphere, and it doesn't forbit social consequences for the stupid things people say or do. But she's actually on trial, and may be forced to pay a fine. That would never happen here in the US.

[taters]

Would you prefer to live in the 1950s America , with the censorship we had then?

Or are we a better place to live now ?

[Peter Parts]

"Free speech" has always had qualifications - the famous one being crying "fire" in a theater.

 

But then the Supreme Court felt that Citizens United (that isn't a human kind of person) had freedom to spend all the money in the world on elections - which seemed like a screwball interpretation at variance with earlier judgments.

 

Some of us wonder about the near infinite freedom from qualifications that some people think is the right for anyone to bear arms, visible or concealed or anywhere or any kind of weapon or ammo.

 

Reasonable qualification - same issue for speech and guns.

 

Ben

Like with a "free market," some things work a lot better when the government establishes ground-rules.

[tallman]

Making a false bomb threat in a school is a federal offense.

I believe it can (does) result in a lifelong label wrt making terroristic threats.

Shirt would not be allowed here.

[Rocer]

I'd venture a guess that this reference to a bomb would get the kid booted from many schools in the U.S. Not necessarily something I agree with, but there have been a number of cases of late where pretty innocuous stuff, like chewing a Pop-Tart into a shape resembling a pistol, has led to disciplinary action.

 

Also, understanding that "Jihad" has a broader meaning than what most folks believe, I'm nonetheless puzzled by that particular choice.

 

Booted from school? Absolutely. The US Constitution doesn't bar schools from enforcing a non-disruptive atmosphere, and it doesn't forbit social consequences for the stupid things people say or do. But she's actually on trial, and may be forced to pay a fine. That would never happen here in the US.

 

A similar event did happen in the U.S. in 2009 when New Jersey parents had the seizure of their children upheld in the courts for naming one of their children Adolph Hitler (the others had Nazi themed names as well but not so obvious). While there appears that no direct law against giving their child this name was involved, laws against domestic abuse were apparently used for the removal of all the children.

 

Link to article.

[upflying]

There are things you cannot say in the US, threats mostly.

BTW, in Sweden a child's first name has to be approved by the government.

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

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

BTW, in Sweden a child's first name has to be approved by the government.

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

 

Same issue came up recently in Iceland, with a girl who until recently had only been referred to as "Girl" in official documents because the name her parents had given her - "Blaer" - didn't meet with official approval.

 

article here.

[upflying]

BTW, in Sweden a child's first name has to be approved by the government.

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

 

Same issue came up recently in Iceland, with a girl who until recently had only been referred to as "Girl" in official documents because the name her parents had given her - "Blaer" - didn't meet with official approval.

 

article here.

 

Check out the first name of this Swedish kid. The name is in protest of the Swedish naming law. (yes I know the caption is Spanish)

[FLrider]

"Free speech" has always had qualifications - the famous one being crying "fire" in a theater.

 

But then the Supreme Court felt that Citizens United (that isn't a human kind of person) had freedom to spend all the money in the world on elections - which seemed like a screwball interpretation at variance with earlier judgments.

 

Some of us wonder about the near infinite freedom from qualifications that some people think is the right for anyone to bear arms, visible or concealed or anywhere or any kind of weapon or ammo.

 

Reasonable qualification - same issue for speech and guns.

 

Ben

 

Like with a "free market," some things work a lot better when the government establishes ground-rules.

 

 

God, I am so glad you are a Canadian. Very few things work better when government gets involved. In a "free" market, one wherein someone didn't have the protections of lawyers and police, a person yelling "fire" in a theater would do so only once. The "market" would ensure it didn't happen again.

 

The risk of adding "qualifiers" to our Constitution (like the 2nd amendment was meant for hunter BS), is that we would run the risk of becoming a country like...well....Canada.

[philbytx]

Ben,

If would help if you read the US constitution, 2nd and 3rd amendments. Hopefully, things might become much clearer to you and would also answer some of the questions in this thread regarding undue government interference in and upon the lives of the populace.

[Huzband]

Ben,

If would help if you read the US constitution, 2nd and 3rd amendments. Hopefully, things might become much clearer to you and would also answer some of the questions in this thread regarding undue government interference in and upon the lives of the populace.

 

Careful, Phil, you're making sense.

[Albert]

BTW, in Sweden a child's first name has to be approved by the government.

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

 

Same issue came up recently in Iceland, with a girl who until recently had only been referred to as "Girl" in official documents because the name her parents had given her - "Blaer" - didn't meet with official approval.

 

article here.

 

My parents wanted to name me "Handsom Genius Boy" but Calvin Klein and MENSA teamed up and got it vetoed.

[tallman]

BTW, in Sweden a child's first name has to be approved by the government.

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

 

Same issue came up recently in Iceland, with a girl who until recently had only been referred to as "Girl" in official documents because the name her parents had given her - "Blaer" - didn't meet with official approval.

 

article here.

 

My parents wanted to name me "Handsom e Genius Boy" but Calvin Klein and MENSA teamed up and got it vetoed.

 

They just didn't want you picked on when you grew up and had to answer to "boy".

 

Snopes on certain names like Nosmo King.

[Albert]

My parents wanted to name me "Handsom e Genius Boy" but Calvin Klein and MENSA teamed up and got it vetoed.

 

OK now you see MENSA's point.

[Bob Palin]

we would run the risk of becoming a country like...well....Canada.

 

That would be so much more preferable than the current situation.

[Fubar]

Making a false bomb threat in a school is a federal offense.

Making a REAL bomb threat is a crime, as well, Tim.

 

"Free speech" has always had qualifications - the famous one being crying "fire" in a theater.

 

But then the Supreme Court felt that Citizens United (that isn't a human kind of person) had freedom to spend all the money in the world on elections - which seemed like a screwball interpretation at variance with earlier judgments.

 

Some of us wonder about the near infinite freedom from qualifications that some people think is the right for anyone to bear arms, visible or concealed or anywhere or any kind of weapon or ammo.

 

Reasonable qualification - same issue for speech and guns.

 

Ben

 

Like with a "free market," some things work a lot better when the government establishes ground-rules.

 

 

God, I am so glad you are a Canadian. Very few things work better when government gets involved. In a "free" market, one wherein someone didn't have the protections of lawyers and police, a person yelling "fire" in a theater would do so only once. The "market" would ensure it didn't happen again.

 

The risk of adding "qualifiers" to our Constitution (like the 2nd amendment was meant for hunter BS), is that we would run the risk of becoming a country like...well....Canada.

If you look dispassionately and objectively you will find that there is, thankfully, federal, state or local governmental "intrusion", i.e. regulation, in nearly every aspect of our (USA) lives.

Drivers licenses, marriage licenses, dog licenses, immunization requirements, professional regulations, qualifications for doctors/lawyers/etc., what side of the road we drive on, how we spell our words (Teddy Roosevelt), air traffic control, voting, home/property ownership, the list is mind-numbingly long. And extraordinarily necessary in almost every instance.

Do we need a law telling you not to tie your alligator to a parking meter? Probably not. Do we need one spelling out that it is illegal to pass a stopped school bus? Hell yes.

There will always be some inconvenience to someone, but the alternative is complete chaos. And violence is the only rule in times of chaos.

So, if you want to live lawless with "Mad Max" feel free to renounce your citizenship and move wherever that is. Eastern Dem. Rep. of Congo is a good candidate, as are parts of the Sahel region of Africa. Afghanistan or Waziristan sound good, too. Enjoy. I'll be happily unarmed in Canada.

[philbytx]

What situation????

 

[Bob Palin]

What situation????

 

The political and social situation in the US.

[Bob Palin]

Do we need a law telling you not to tie your alligator to a parking meter? Probably not.

 

Actually we kind of do, probably not as specific as that, but it's better to have things legal by default rather than illegal.

[philbytx]

Oh! You mean the GLOBAL situation ?

 

 

[Fubar]

Do we need a law telling you not to tie your alligator to a parking meter? Probably not.

Actually we kind of do, probably not as specific as that, but it's better to have things legal by default rather than illegal.

Good point, Bob.

I'd much rather live where I have to deal with a situation that has some seemingly silly laws as that but has solid water and food quality/safety regulations than live somewhere that has neither.

I'd also rather not have 3 year-olds driving, I don't want lead in my paint nor foreign-born people as my president. (That is NOT a political statement, it's a reiteration of the Constitution.) I'll gladly pay taxes so someone else picks up my trash and deals with it in an environmentally responsible way and some others can deal with the outflow from my toilets and showers. I like the Coast Guard, et al, and (almost) all the rules they enforce and am glad I don't have to do my time out in the Gulf of Mexico intercepting human traffickers and drug smugglers. I'm not qualified and don't want to be.

My point, made with a sledge hammer as is my my nature, is that we as a functioning society need rules and laws. We need a subsection of ourselves to determine what those laws should be, to enforce them and to punish those who violate them. That subsection is called a government. Does that government function perfectly? Hell no! Will it ever? Hell no! Would we be better off without it? Oh, HELL NO!

We just need to keep tweaking it, bitching at our elected representatives, firing the ones who screw up, make our voices heard, realize that we won't win every argument/election but stay involved in the process. It's like I said right after the Nov. election and is true after every election: We won. Whether your candidate or ballot initiative did or not, the process goes on and thus we all win, every time, every election. Participate and win.

[DiggerJim]

Some of us wonder about the near infinite freedom from qualifications that some people think is the right for anyone to bear arms, visible or concealed or anywhere or any kind of weapon or ammo.

Apart from the absolute nonsense the above encompasses, some of us wonder about the intellectual dichotomy that leads someone to believe that the US Constitution's protection of the freedom of speech applies to naked dancing in bars, tweeting, blogging, Internet postings of government communications and all manner of 21st century expression none of which was invented in 1787....but the 2nd Amendment only applies to firearms of the type made in 1787 (or none at all) even though that firearm was the assault rifle of its time...either the Constitution represents protections for our inalienable rights, all of them, or it's nothing but the will of the majority including when the majority is wrong - but unlike "other places" like Bosnia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Armenia, Germany...our majority is never wrong, eh?

 

Most people have heard Santayana's famous "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" which definitely applies to our current situation, but they should consider the whole of the writing that preceded that sentiment:

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual.

[Dave McReynolds]

I'll bet they had naked dancing in bars in 1787, maybe not in Philadelphia, but somewhere....

[FLrider]

Ben,

If would help if you read the US constitution, 2nd and 3rd amendments. Hopefully, things might become much clearer to you and would also answer some of the questions in this thread regarding undue government interference in and upon the lives of the populace.

 

[Ron_B]

Many places don't enjoy the same freedom of speech we do here in the US. Most countries in Europe, France included, have laws prohibiting Holocaust denial. In Germany there's a whole range of symbols (most related to Nazism) that you're not allowed to display.

 

It's interesting to see that in the case of the French Holocaust denial law, the UN Human Rights Committee has not exactly condemned it.

 

I detest Holocaust denial, as well as the malicious clowns who engage in it. That said, I think it's mind-numbingly stupid to make it a crime.

[tallman]

I'll bet they had naked dancing in bars in 1787, maybe not in Philadelphia, but somewhere....

 

 

Get to know Ben Franklin and his proclivities.

Don't think he was alone or the exception.

[doc47]

I'd venture a guess that this reference to a bomb would get the kid booted from many schools in the U.S. Not necessarily something I agree with, but there have been a number of cases of late where pretty innocuous stuff, like chewing a Pop-Tart into a shape resembling a pistol, has led to disciplinary action.

 

Also, understanding that "Jihad" has a broader meaning than what most folks believe, I'm nonetheless puzzled by that particular choice.

 

Booted from school? Absolutely. The US Constitution doesn't bar schools from enforcing a non-disruptive atmosphere, and it doesn't forbit social consequences for the stupid things people say or do. But she's actually on trial, and may be forced to pay a fine. That would never happen here in the US.

 

A similar event did happen in the U.S. in 2009 when New Jersey parents had the seizure of their children upheld in the courts for naming one of their children Adolph Hitler (the others had Nazi themed names as well but not so obvious).

 

Wasn't the kid Adolph Hitler Bernstein?

[doc47]

I'll bet they had naked dancing in bars in 1787, maybe not in Philadelphia, but somewhere....

 

 

Get to know Ben Franklin and his proclivities.

Don't think he was alone or the exception.

 

I've read a couple of biographies of Franklin and neither mentioned him dancing naked in bars. The thought alone makes me a bit dizzy.

Perhaps if he had, though, France would have entered the American Revolution sooner.

[philbytx]

I agree Ron! If idiocy and/or a tiny intellect were crimes, the folks controlling government and its systems would all be in jail

[kmac]

Legal or not, constitutionally protected or not, why would anyone want to torture their own child by naming them something so controversial and open to so much criticsm and ridicule.

 

Adolf Hitler, Nimrod, Kelly...oh wait, either way giving a kid a name just to make a point is just wrong and calls into question the parents judgement and ability to make good parenting decisions. JMHO though.

 

I want the BEST for my daughter and want to giver her every change to thrive, not struggle and be ridiculed. Even if that ridicule should not happen, bullying is wrong, but it does still happen so subjecting a child to it just because you CAN, or because YOU want to make some point...thats crap.