Solmyr Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Thanks for the clarification EB. Regarding the lawyer-example, I probably wasn't as thorough in my description as I should've been - in my example we assume the person is guilty of apology for terrorism and will be found guilty in the court. He still gets a trial and a legal defender tho. Upon losing the case, isn't the lawyer guilty of [apology for] apology for terrorism, having tried to prove the innocence (or mitigate the sentence) of a person, who was guilty of apology for terrorism. Depending on how the penal stature is written, a scenario such as this might already be covered and excluded from the law. To conclude, I am quite shocked that saying pro-terrorism things could land me in jail for 7 years in France. Not as harsh a punishment I would probably receive in the States, but would still make me think twice before [re]visiting the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lessthanluke Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Thanks for the clarification EB. Regarding the lawyer-example, I probably wasn't as thorough in my description as I should've been - in my example we assume the person is guilty of apology for terrorism and will be found guilty in the court. He still gets a trial and a legal defender tho. Upon losing the case, isn't the lawyer guilty of [apology for] apology for terrorism, having tried to prove the innocence (or mitigate the sentence) of a person, who was guilty of apology for terrorism. What? You don't assume the person is guilty beforehand otherwise there would be no point in the trial. This makes zero sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 It should be noted that a lot of countries already have slander and libel laws on the books, so to some extent you *are* protected from insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errant Bard Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Regarding the lawyer-example, I probably wasn't as thorough in my description as I should've been - in my example we assume the person is guilty of apology for terrorism and will be found guilty in the court. He still gets a trial and a legal defender tho. Upon losing the case, isn't the lawyer guilty of [apology for] apology for terrorism, having tried to prove the innocence (or mitigate the sentence) of a person, who was guilty of apology for terrorism.Still not making sense to me. A lawyer isn't doing the apology of whatever his client might have done, he's saying that his client has not done the deed, or that he has done it with mitigating circumstances, those are different things, I don't understand your take. Do you really think that a lawyer, upon losing a rape case, can be said to have done apology of rape? Really? To conclude, I am quite shocked that saying pro-terrorism things could land me in jail for 7 years in France. Not as harsh a punishment I would probably receive in the States, but would still make me think twice before [re]visiting the country.Your choice. Even if the law was already in place when you visited the first time. I would not have thought that the potential for a French citizen or organization to be prosecuted for publicly saying that it supports blowing up non-combatants could deter tourism, but I'm not sure I am sorry for the loss, all things considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 Galactus,It should be noted that a lot of countries already have slander and libel laws on the books, so to some extent you *are* protected from insults. The key is that what is said as "insult" must not be true. Calling someone a filandering idiot would not be liable if the person is actually a filanderer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theda Baratheon Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 What? You don't assume the person is guilty beforehand otherwise there would be no point in the trial. This makes zero sense.Yeah, this really doesn't make any sense no matter how clearly you (solmyr) write your nonsensical question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 To conclude, I am quite shocked that saying pro-terrorism things could land me in jail for 7 years in France. Not as harsh a punishment I would probably receive in the States, but would still make me think twice before [re]visiting the country. As far as I'm aware, you would receive no punishment for simply making pro-terrorist statements in the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solmyr Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Your choice. Even if the law was already in place when you visited the first time. I would not have thought that the potential for a French citizen or organization to be prosecuted for publicly saying that it supports blowing up non-combatants could deter tourism, but I'm not sure I am sorry for the loss, all things considered.It definitely was, but my last and only visit was for 5 days and I barely had time to go on the internet and post about terrorism, so I was rather safe. The potential loss of tourists shouldn't be among the top concerns of a citizen living in a country with such a law, me thinks. As far as I'm aware, you would receive no punishment for simply making pro-terrorist statements in the United States.US - France1 - 0;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 OAR, As far as I'm aware, you would receive no punishment for simply making pro-terrorist statements in the United States.Well, you and your son could be killed in a drone strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 OAR,Well, you and your son could be killed in a drone strike. At the risk of opening a can of worms, al-Awlaki had gone beyond simply making pro-terrorist statements, and the justification for killing him was based in the claim that he was actively planning attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 OAR,Has that evidence ever been released or is it based upon "trust us... he was planning attacks, but look at all this pro terrorism stuff he wrote."? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Scot you haven't commented on Australia's RDA 18C, which specifically addresses insulting, I'll quote it here RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18COffensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin (1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if: (a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and (b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.Note: Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it: (a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or (b) is done in a public place; or © is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place. (3) In this section:"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.There are then exemptions in 18D18D Exemptions Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith: (a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or (b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or © in making or publishing: (i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or (ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment. What is your view on these laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solmyr Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Scot, I do not doubt that things much worse than 7 years in jail would happen to me in the US if I posted pro-terrorism statements online. However, if there is no actual law about it, it means that whoever punishes you is doing so illegally and needs to either hide his crime or concoct lies to justify his actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 OAR,Has that evidence ever been released or is it based upon "trust us... he was planning attacks, but look at all this pro terrorism stuff he wrote."? The point is that there was no claim to authority to punish or execute al-Awlaki for his having simply made pro-terrorist statements. To the best of my knowledge, it is not the case that there is exists an enforced prohibition against simply making pro-terrorist statements under US law. The al-Awlaki case does not contradict this, as no one has made the argument that he could lawfully be punished simply for making pro-terrorist statements, even if it is the case that the government either 1) was, in fact, wrong about his planning activities or 2) was secretly just really pissed at him for making pro-terrorist statements. In either case they relied on the argument that he was an active threat, not that making pro-terrorist statements was illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 Karaddin,I disagree with them. I don't believe we have a right to be free from insult. That is too much power over free speech in the hands of people who could use it to suppress political speech. I do not want people to be insulted or treated rudely, but I also do not want to give government the power to enforce subjective standards of politeness.For example the Charlie Hebdo cartoon was pretty clearly insulting to devout Muslims not because of the way Muhammad was portrayed but by the fact that Muhammad was physically represented at all. I believe that's considered idolatry in Islam. However, it was done because they were defending the principle of freedom of expression as such it may fall into the exemptions you also list. The exemptions may narrow the scope of the law to apply only to those who insult maliciously. However, that is such an incredibly subjective standard I do not know how it could be properly applied in Court. As such my fall back is that people should not have a right to be free from insult, myself included. Attempting to make insults illegal creates more problems than it solves in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 OAR,What do we know with certaintly about Al-awlaki case? That he supported the actions of terrorists. We have never been presented with anything but the self-serving statement that he helped plan terrorist attacks. Therefore we are left with the only evidence of bad acts by Al-awlaki being his statements in support of terrorism and the impression that he was killed for those statements because the government that killed him refuses to release anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Scot, is it illegal to make pro-terrorist statements in the US, and has the government claimed that it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of the Beast Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Scot you haven't commented on Australia's RDA 18C, which specifically addresses insulting, I'll quote it here I have a question: take the Eatock v Bolt case for example where it was found that Andrew Bolt violated the RDA by publishing an piece that stated some lighter skinned Aboriginals are overstating their Aboriginal identity in order to further their careers. Opinions on Bolt's opinion aside, has he committed a crime? Either what he said should be a crime or the Federal Court did not properly apply the law or there's something wrong with the RDA. Personally, I would much prefer to live in a country where what Bolt said is not a crime and where I'm as free to disagree with Bolt's opinion as he is to voice it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Scot that has been the law since 1975 without any major miscarriages of justice or runaway Government ccensorship. The exceptions allow for good faith public debate and the majority of Australians see it as an important part of taking a stand against racism - it is not OK to express certain opinions, we do not hold freedom of speech to be utterly sacrosanct. And as I said above, unlimited free speech for some can in fact limit the overall speech by limiting it for those with less power. The right wing has a hard on for changing this law in Aus since one of their media blow hards was found guilty under it, but even in the ruling it stated that the the evidence showed his statements were not in good faith and were known to not be true, the case could just as easily have been defamation and would have been won, but by doing it under the racial discrimination act it made a larger statement about what was acceptable. ETA: To gears - should have been a crime and I'm good with a society where it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 Karaddin,I have a couple of practical questions:1) often is this law actually enforced?2) is the standard, given the exemptions, insulting with malicious intent or are the exemptions offered as affirmative defenses for Defendants to prove up after being charged with a violation of this statute?OAR,Until we see that there was actual evidence against Al-awlaki I have to say yes for people speaking in support of terrorism outside the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.