It's illegal in France to deny an atrocity acknowledged by the State. If the government calls something genocide or a heinous crime, it's illegal for a citizen NOT to agree. It was meant to reign in holocoust deniers, making it illegal. Then it was used as a political pawn against Turkey, viz Ottoman crimes against Armenians.
In Britain two women are in court demanding their right to wear a cross to work.
In Germany it's even illegal to salute the German flag, or borders on social taboo.
Europe .. it's fucked, but it's better than the U.S.
The law making it illegal to deny the Armenian genocide has been invalidated by the constitutional council. The decision is quite interesting actually:
- It is right to forbid denying the holocaust, as it has been recognised by an international jurisdiction (the Nuremberg court)
- But it is wrong to forbid the Armenian genocide because it has been declared a genocide directly by the French government, so it could be used to censor anything.
It seems a weird choice to me(I'm French), but it makes some sense.
(http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionne... -- in French legalese)
Also, free speech isn't absolute even in the US, for example I think you must also have libel laws.
How can it be right to forbid denying anything whatsoever? That is thought crime pure and simple. Just because an "international jurisdiction" "recognised" it, doesn't mean a) they got it right and b) new evidence may not come up thus calling for a re-assessment of the whole thing. History is science, nothing is undeniable in science.
In Britain two women are in court demanding their right to wear a cross to work.
Presume you're talking about this ( http://www.rt.com/news/uk-bans-wearing-cross-317/ ). This touches on religion, and whether the state wants to have a very multicultural/multiethnic workplaces, the wearing of overt religious iconography from one group can hinder that.
(Tis quite funny how the UK with an established state religion can be quite secular)
In Germany it's even illegal to salute the German flag, or borders on social taboo.
Probably depends on how you salute it. ;) One thing to remember in Europe, unlike the USA, there isn't as much flag waving or similar nationalistic stuff, unless there's a sporting match on. From seeing photos of the USA it looks like it's not uncommon for private citizens to have American flags outside. Here, if there isn't a sporting match on, it's either government buildings, or far right nationaists who habitually use their national flag. So behaviours that seem OK in USA, might seem weird in EU.
Some of this silly things are due to problems europe has had in the past (like religious persecution or extreme right wing nationalism)
Usually you wont find a flag pole on private property in the cities and it's clearly far, far, far, far, far away from e.g. US levels of showing the flag, but it's hard to picture a Schrebergartenkolonie[1] without a german flag (even the wikipedia picture show one: [2]). Same is true for private properties where flag poles are more common (rural or costal regions).
I agree it's not a custom, but it's not definitely no taboo.
"The German flag, long weighted by the country's postwar reluctance about open displays of national pride, is flying again, an expression of exuberance as Germany plays host to the World Cup" [1]
There is no country which allows completely unrestricted speech. In America, the common example is "shouting fire in a crowded theatre".
All countries define a subset of speech to be harmful in certain contexts. Some countries are more or less restrictive in defining that subset, but there is absolutely a continuum.
Most European countries do not have the same interpretation of free speech as the current US interpretation.
Free Speech definitions change over time, even in the USA. For lots of the 20th century movies didn't fall under "free speech", and before then blasphemy laws were not uncommon. Regions differ with other rights aswell, the free speech rights might be weaker in EU than USA, but employee or anti-discrimination law is stronger in EU than USA say.
It probably wouldn't be considered a free speech issue since they are not targeting the speech, just those who consume it. I would imagine it's more of a privacy issue since they would have to track the browsing habits of every single person in France to make sure they are only viewing "acceptable" websites, whatever that happens to be on any given day.
If you're allowed to say what you want, but no one is allowed to listen to it, then you don't have free speech. The logical reason for free speech is communication.
But the websites' free speech would be heard, it's just the issue is punishing people for hearing it after the fact. If we were talking about shutting down the sites to prevent people from hearing it then I would agree. An example would be you standing on the corner denouncing the government and the people walking by that heard your speech being arrested simply for hearing it, while you are left alone to continue your speech.
Granted, the original statement is an idiotic one and a good indicator of the thought process of power-hungry fools who don't understand the purpose of law intended for the protection of the people.
