Thought Police Now Making "Hate Speech" Arrests to Defend Charlie Hebdo's Freedom of Speech

a reply to: Shamrock6
Point is mate,it's always made to look like it's a caring entity in charge of policy when the truth is it's a bunch of sick freaky weirdos that get pleasure out of controlling every aspect of our lives.
And in the big picture when you put half of the narratives coming out of the Establishment together you can see their pipe dream is to make anyone not going along with the delusion we are fed will be branded a terrorist.
And why would they do this?
Because they are absolutely corrupt,treacherous and a bunch of thieving sociopaths that know if they don't screw the lid down tightly now then sooner or later people blowing the whistle on their antics will start to have a major impact.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Well yea I'm sure when you redefine "Thought Police" to include "people getting arrested for actions and speech" then I can see why that would make sense to you. But since the very concept of Thought Police is arresting people before they do or say anything, that definition you've come up with is false. People being arrested for deeds is not Thought Police, unless one expands it to "Thoughts and Deeds Police" in which case yep, you're spot on.

"Speech" is not doing anything anymore than "thinking" is doing something.

Crime involves a specific victim that suffered as the result of a specific action.

"Hate speech" gave government the authority to arrest citizens without a victim, or any evidence of somebody being harmed.

It is the essence of stopping a hypothetical future crime.

Circular logic and redefining to fit your narrative. As usual.

Allow me to use a metaphor: this is like a cat in a china shop. Oh, you say the phrase is actually "bull in a china shop" do you? Well, I changed it because I like this better and it suits my end-game more.

I'm not chasing your argument in circles today. Sorry

Is "hate speech" not a code word? "Hate" implies an emotion, so if you are not feeling the emotion of hate when you say whatever, is it really hate speech? No, it's a form of political correctness, and PC means that you decline to call the PTB out on their evil agenda.

originally posted by: Jamie1
Do you think France will arrest the publishers of Charlie Hebdo for inciting terrorism?

No. They did not incite terrorism. Going by what you've said in this thread, you (and others) should read about inciting terrorism and what that actually means.

a reply to: Jamie1

Crime involves a specific victim that suffered as the result of a specific action.

no it doesn't - it involves a specific person (or group of people) acting in contravention of the law

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: Jamie1

So that big rally they had in Paris. That was to incite "free speech" then.

no - it was a show of solidarity and support

So France should be arresting itself for inciting the "hate speech."

what hate speech? the demonstrations weren't advocating anything illegal

Hard to have it both ways and make sense.

dictionaries are your friend - things become clearer when you know what words mean

Logic may be your friend one day.

Demonstrations were in support. Support of Charlie Hebdo to publish what Muslims and other religions believe is hate speech against them.

Viva la France! The birthplace of freedom and everything.

So inspired by France's new found memory of what it's like to live in a free country rather than a socialist cesspool of regulations, people wrongly believed they could speak freely against Jews, Muslims, whoever....

At which point France arrested them for "hate speech."

It's the manifestation of thought police. The government decides which thoughts are ok to express, and which are not approved.

Mock Muslims? Thumbs up. You're good to go.

Say you hate Jews? Nope. No hatin' on Jews allowed. Remember what happened in Germany?? We're not going to have that kind of stuff here in Paris.

Insult somebody's race? Wait. We better call the U.K. They know how to handle that one.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Jamie1
Charlie Hebdo publishes cartoons.

Muslims commit mass murder.

France holds rally to defend free speech.

France begins making arrests for "hate speech" because well... some speech is just not allowed.

Now Hiring for Thought Police.

finance.yahoo.com...

Many countries in Europe actually DO restrict your speech in regards to hate speech. These are already laws on the books.

Yes, so that whole "we support Charlie Hebdo's right to mock muslims" and carrying around pens and marching arms locked with world leaders was kind of a farce then, right?

I'm guessing if the Muslim equivalent of Charlie Hebdo was published with a cover of Hitler being served grapes by Jews there might be some arrests made.

Just speculating of course. It's not like they're going around arresting people this week or anything.

a reply to: loki41872

They make fun of all religions and political parties. I don't recall the Catholics or Jews shooting the place up.

Very true....however, apparently Jews are off the list for satirising as far as Charlie Hebdo is concerned.

Maurice Sinet, 80, who works under the pen name Sine, faces charges of "inciting racial hatred" for a column he wrote last July in the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo. The piece sparked a summer slanging match among the Parisian intelligentsia and ended in his dismissal from the magazine.

"L'affaire Sine" followed the engagement of Mr Sarkozy, 22, to Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, the Jewish heiress of an electronic goods chain. Commenting on an unfounded rumour that the president's son planned to convert to Judaism, Sine quipped: "He'll go a long way in life, that little lad."

A high-profile political commentator slammed the column as linking prejudice about Jews and social success. Charlie Hebdo's editor, Philippe Val, asked Sinet to apologise but he refused, exclaiming: "I'd rather cut my balls off."

Source

a reply to: Jamie1

I don't live in Europe so I try to stay out of their politics. When it comes to restricting free speech though, you have to take the good with the bad. As well as be able to know where the line is drawn in the sand between acceptable speech and (in this case) hate speech. America hasn't gone down this path, so luckily we don't have these debates. Though I CAN see why such laws were implemented in Europe (prevent another Nazi Germany).

Ban "Free Speech".

Vote for "Accepted Speech."

Have a nice day.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Well yea I'm sure when you redefine "Thought Police" to include "people getting arrested for actions and speech" then I can see why that would make sense to you. But since the very concept of Thought Police is arresting people before they do or say anything, that definition you've come up with is false. People being arrested for deeds is not Thought Police, unless one expands it to "Thoughts and Deeds Police" in which case yep, you're spot on.

"Speech" is not doing anything anymore than "thinking" is doing something.

Crime involves a specific victim that suffered as the result of a specific action.

"Hate speech" gave government the authority to arrest citizens without a victim, or any evidence of somebody being harmed.

It is the essence of stopping a hypothetical future crime.

Circular logic and redefining to fit your narrative. As usual.

Allow me to use a metaphor: this is like a cat in a china shop. Oh, you say the phrase is actually "bull in a china shop" do you? Well, I changed it because I like this better and it suits my end-game more.

I'm not chasing your argument in circles today. Sorry

Great example.

Yes, "like a bull in a china shop" is a simile. It's not literal. The symbolism of a bull in a china shop conveys meaning.

The book 1984 is literature. Symbolic. It contains metaphors.

One metaphor is that of "thought police." It describes a totalitarian government so entrenched into our lives that our very thoughts are justification for arrest. And by deciding what thoughts get punished, the totalitarian government controls and brainwashes the masses.

Obviously, nobody is being arrested for sitting around having a thought.

They are being arrested for speaking those thoughts... but only if they are the "wrong" thoughts, according to the French government.

Talk smack about Jews or the holocaust? You're getting arrested.

Talk smack about Mohammed? You get a parade.

Weird, huh?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Jamie1
Do you think France will arrest the publishers of Charlie Hebdo for inciting terrorism?

No. They did not incite terrorism. Going by what you've said in this thread, you (and others) should read about inciting terrorism and what that actually means.

That's great, except now they're arresting people for simply having an opposing viewpoint.

originally posted by: Jamie1

Obviously, nobody is being arrested for sitting around having a thought.

Well, not yet. But, "google glass" is coming. The age of interfacing the mind to the computer is dawning.
Soon, you'll be able to think and have your thoughts appear on ATS, without finger typing the words.

originally posted by: Aliian

originally posted by: Jamie1

Obviously, nobody is being arrested for sitting around having a thought.

Well, not yet. But, "google glass" is coming. The age of interfacing the mind to the computer is dawning.
Soon, you'll be able to think and have your thoughts appear on ATS, without finger typing the words.

Interesting you brought that up.

The U.K. law allows for extradition for "hate speech" crimes.

That means the internet is going to be policed by the thought crime department.

Isn't putting somebody in jail because you don't like what they said a worse crime than just speaking the words?

Ironic.

The "hate speech" laws are justified in the context of preventing another Nazi Germany while the government takes away freedom of the people to express certain viewpoints.

a reply to: Aliian

Google Glass is already here and it is doing abysmally.

How Google Screwed Up Google Glass

You know, the key difference here is that they're merely being arrested by the cops in France, and not shot dead by the cops like in America.

originally posted by: TheArrow
You know, the key difference here is that they're merely being arrested by the cops in France, and not shot dead by the cops like in America.

I would expect if they resisted arrest they'd be shot dead by the cops in France too.

Except cops in France don't carry guns.

That worked out well, didn't it?

I said this was coming. The French don't screw around with thing like this. And we have the same type of laws in Canada. Earnst Zundel being the most prominent.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: TheArrow
You know, the key difference here is that they're merely being arrested by the cops in France, and not shot dead by the cops like in America.

I would expect if they resisted arrest they'd be shot dead by the cops in France too.

Except cops in France don't carry guns.

That worked out well, didn't it?

Yes, it works out quite well.

France could have one of these attacks every week for a year and it would be less death than the amount of Americans killed each year by police alone.