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

originally posted by: intrepid
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.

Wow. Thank you for that link.

Interesting story and potential consequences.

So if a "holocaust" denier can be removed from the U.S. and sent back to Germany, is it really that far of a stretch that anybody here on ATS who calls the Paris attack a "false flag" might be arrested and deported?

Wasn't there a prominent political figure in the U.S. who claimed "conspiracy theorists" were the problem?

This tweet, “Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly," is what got somebody arrested in France.

originally posted by: Jamie1
So if a "holocaust" denier can be removed from the U.S. and sent back to Germany, is it really that far of a stretch that anybody here on ATS who calls the Paris attack a "false flag" might be arrested and deported?

Yes, it is a stretch. This guy wasn't an American, and he was here on an expired visa.

a reply to: Jamie1

Extradition for who?.
You have to be in the UK for it to be able to apply.
The courts have already said people in the USA for example can not be done for it.

The Supreme Court has indicated that an offence is committed where the person posts or controls the material in this country. Therefore, much material that can be viewed in the UK is outside the jurisdiction of our courts. The USA, for instance does not have offences of inciting racial hatred but if someone inside the UK posts on a foreign site then that could still be illegal here. (The person posting is always responsible for their content and web hosts could be if they, for instance, encourage or knowingly allow it to remain).

www.report-it.org.uk...

Also we are allowed to insult now seeing being insulted is a matter of opinion.

Reform Section 5 campaign[edit]
In 2012, a campaign was launched by The Christian Institute to remove the word "insulting" from section 5 of the Public Order Act. The campaign was backed by a number of high-profile activists including comedian Rowan Atkinson and former Shadow Home Secretary David Davis. On 12 December 2012, the House of Lords voted in favour of amending the Public Order Act to remove the word "insulting". In January 2013, the government announced that it would accept the amendment, despite having previously opposed it. The amendment to the Public Order Act was duly passed into law, as section 57 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (see www.legislation.gov.uk...).

en.wikipedia.org...


Total free speech doesn't exist...try to post on a site that you want people to kill the president and see what happens.

originally posted by: Jamie1

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?

It is a great example, thanks dude. It's great because I changed the very definition of the initial metaphor into something else, and then told whomever disagreed with it that it was okay to change the definition because reasons.

You keep blasting about how the "thought police" are arresting people for actions. That defies the very idea and concept of "thought police."

You can think whatever you like dude. Nobody got arrested for a thought. They were arrested for actions that were a crime, despite you trying to redefine what a crime is.

Continuing to bang the "thought police" drum when it comes to people acting on something dilutes the idea of "thought police." Color it however you want but at the end of the day, you're still redefining things as you go to suit your narrative dude.

originally posted by: Jamie1
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.

This!
This is, I think, what the sheeple are not getting. Stand with the people who deeply and purposefully offend Muslims - and you get world leaders locking arms in support of your "free speech". But anything negative about Jews, Zionism or express the slightest doubt about the gas chambers and it's off to jail for years.
uprootedpalestinians.wordpress.com...
First he was fired from Charlie Hedbo for not apologizing and now it's jail - for simply saying that Sarkosy's son might "go a long way in life" if he converted to Judaism.

Why is no one here seeing the hypocrisy?

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Jamie1
So if a "holocaust" denier can be removed from the U.S. and sent back to Germany, is it really that far of a stretch that anybody here on ATS who calls the Paris attack a "false flag" might be arrested and deported?

Yes, it is a stretch. This guy wasn't an American, and he was here on an expired visa.

You might want to read this.

EU countries do not have to even define "intent" let alone prove it.

Those accused of "hate speech" can only plead guilty or insane. They can't legally plead "not guilty."

Be careful what you wish for.

originally posted by: Shamrock6Nobody got arrested for a thought. They were arrested for actions that were a crime, despite you trying to redefine what a crime is.

They got arrested for this tweet: “Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly.”

They didn't get arrested for tweeting. They got arrested for the thought expressed by the tweet.... by the same people who organized a huge rally to support Charlie Hedbo's freedom of speech.

"I am Charlie Hebdo!" < GOOD! YA!
"I feel like Charlie Coulibaly" < BOO! Put him in a cage.

I'm not the one who redefined "crime." That was done by those who passed the laws making certain beliefs criminal.

Because they need charlie hebdo to further fan the flames of hate and islamaphobia .. cant have people seeing through the bull# and speaking out against it ..

Just wonder how much more the body count going to rise after charlie hebdo's latest #stirring ..

originally posted by: Jamie1
You might want to read this.

EU countries do not have to even define "intent" let alone prove it.

Those accused of "hate speech" can only plead guilty or insane. They can't legally plead "not guilty."

Be careful what you wish for.

I read it. It backs up my position that the United States doesn't kowtow to European rules on the internet.

France wanted Yahoo to pay 100,000 francs a day for selling Nazi stuff on their websites. The United States laughed them out of court. Then, they wanted us to hand over people for "hate speech" and we told them no.

originally posted by: Dabrazzo

Inciting terrorism can bring a 5-year prison term

So was the Charlie Hebdo publication NOT inciting terrorism then?, cause thats exactly what it seems to have done, quite literally.

There is a difference between inciting terrorism by calling for people to take up arms, training them, instructing them on how to make bombs etc and upsetting somebodys belief system

If upsetting somebodys beliefs is incitement to terrorism then we might as well rip out our tongues and chop our hands off because somebody somewhere will be offended by whatever anybody does. Go to the islands of Scotland and make damn sure you do NOTHING on sundays !!!! Don't suggest a pub in Clarkston (nothing to do with muslims btw). Don't wear green in larkhall or ibrox, don't wear blue in Castlemilk or Parkhead etc etc It was a lot worse 30 years ago.

There is a difference between offending somebody because of who they are genetically and who they are through choice. That is all you need to understand. Muslims are muslims by choice not genetics. The image of mohammed is only offensive because some Imam has brainwashed his flock. Go back a few hundred years and muslim artists were painting images of mohammed.

Every time some idiot spouts forth "I am offended by that image of ......" they should be slapped down verbally and told to grow up. Zero tolerance for weak beliefs.

I am not offended by an image of mohammed, That image causes no physical harm to any being on this planet. And yet I am supposed to curtail my actions because of somebody elses indoctrinatedthoughts..........no way in hell they can take an f to themselves

a reply to: Jamie1

One last comment and I'm done here. I said I wasn't going to try and follow your circular logic and I didn't stick to that. Shame on me right dude?

They were arrested for the expression of their thought. Not for having the thought. If you can't delineate between having an idea and expressing that idea, then we have discovered the crux of the issue with you redefining things.

And no, France didn't redefine crime. Crime is what it is. You redefined it.

Good day sir

originally posted by: intrepid
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.

I just found this regarding Canada's internet law:

An independent review by a Canadian law professor adds another voice to the clamor calling for repeal of Sec. 13, the internet hate speech provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The federal law makes it illegal to say anything "likely to expose an identifiable group to hatred or contempt." Problems with this should be immediately obvious.

Source

So in Canada, it's a crime to post anything that could be construed as simply "exposing" a group to hatred or contempt?

For example, stories about "white cops" or "Muslim terrorists" could be considered criminal?

originally posted by: Expat888
Because they need charlie hebdo to further fan the flames of hate and islamaphobia .. cant have people seeing through the bull# and speaking out against it ..

I think you'll find Islamists are doing enough to fan the flames of hate without killing a few people in France.

Their irrational barbarity has just been brought closer to home. If in doubt about the Islamist hatred towards others, just ask a Nigerian or Kenyan, or a Muslim living in any number of Muslim countries where Muslims are running riot killing fellow Muslim - Iraq, Syria, Algeria, Tunisia, Mali, Afghanistan (etc). ISIS in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan are just two examples that spring readily to mind. Most casualties in Iraq after GW2 were Muslims on Muslim - the US were not targets of the many market-place bombings. Ask a Christian in Iraq (if you can find one), or a Jew in... Sorry they've all been booted out!

Islamists are already well warmed by their own flames.

Regards

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Jamie1
You might want to read this.

EU countries do not have to even define "intent" let alone prove it.

Those accused of "hate speech" can only plead guilty or insane. They can't legally plead "not guilty."

Be careful what you wish for.

I read it. It backs up my position that the United States doesn't kowtow to European rules on the internet.

France wanted Yahoo to pay 100,000 francs a day for selling Nazi stuff on their websites. The United States laughed them out of court. Then, they wanted us to hand over people for "hate speech" and we told them no.

Now read this.

Twitter caved to French authorities demanding that those who talked smack about Jews be turned over.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Jamie1

One last comment and I'm done here. I said I wasn't going to try and follow your circular logic and I didn't stick to that. Shame on me right dude?

They were arrested for the expression of their thought. Not for having the thought. If you can't delineate between having an idea and expressing that idea, then we have discovered the crux of the issue with you redefining things.

And no, France didn't redefine crime. Crime is what it is. You redefined it.

Good day sir

Your missing the point.

By definition, "hate speech" implies knowing the intent of the person speaking. "Hate" is an intent. A thought.

How can a government know, or prove, an intent based on thought?

You do realize that according to French law it's criminal to suggest the terror attacks might be a false flag? You know that, right? That's because your intent could be construed to be supporting terrorism.

Being put into a cage because a government official decided your intent was to insult somebody is not redefining crime. You're right.

That's what's being going on for thousands of years. It's what goes on in Russia. That's why Pussy Riot was arrested. Goes on in China every day. Cuba.

Now Paris.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Jamie1
You might want to read this.

EU countries do not have to even define "intent" let alone prove it.

Those accused of "hate speech" can only plead guilty or insane. They can't legally plead "not guilty."

Be careful what you wish for.

I read it. It backs up my position that the United States doesn't kowtow to European rules on the internet.

France wanted Yahoo to pay 100,000 francs a day for selling Nazi stuff on their websites. The United States laughed them out of court. Then, they wanted us to hand over people for "hate speech" and we told them no.

Now read this.

Twitter caved to French authorities demanding that those who talked smack about Jews be turned over.

Twitter can't extradite, so I'm not worried.

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Jamie1
You might want to read this.

EU countries do not have to even define "intent" let alone prove it.

Those accused of "hate speech" can only plead guilty or insane. They can't legally plead "not guilty."

Be careful what you wish for.

I read it. It backs up my position that the United States doesn't kowtow to European rules on the internet.

France wanted Yahoo to pay 100,000 francs a day for selling Nazi stuff on their websites. The United States laughed them out of court. Then, they wanted us to hand over people for "hate speech" and we told them no.

Now read this.

Twitter caved to French authorities demanding that those who talked smack about Jews be turned over.

Twitter can't extradite, so I'm not worried.

How about this?

I'm not trying to worry you.

I'm pointing out the reality.

It is now illegal to insult people in many countries.

Criminally illegal.

And there is precedent in the U.K. for arresting somebody because he was charged with defaming the dead in Germany.

a reply to: Jamie1

Germany has laws against public holocaust denial. Which he was convicted of violating, and served his sentence for and was released. Then German prosecutors got a warrant issued for him because of stuff he posted online several years later. The Brits arrested him because of that warrant. A British court then struck down the warrant and denied extradition.

You misunderstand the article, which is easy to do since it omits a number of pertinent facts. He wasn't charged with defaming the dead, he was convicted of it. Along with incitement to racial hatred, public denial of the holocaust, etc.

Oh, and a German judge then said he couldn't be prosecuted for posts on the Internet unless they originated while he was physically in Germany.

if you're going to point out "reality" then point out all of it

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Jamie1
You might want to read this.

EU countries do not have to even define "intent" let alone prove it.

Those accused of "hate speech" can only plead guilty or insane. They can't legally plead "not guilty."

Be careful what you wish for.

I read it. It backs up my position that the United States doesn't kowtow to European rules on the internet.

France wanted Yahoo to pay 100,000 francs a day for selling Nazi stuff on their websites. The United States laughed them out of court. Then, they wanted us to hand over people for "hate speech" and we told them no.

Now read this.

Twitter caved to French authorities demanding that those who talked smack about Jews be turned over.

Twitter can't extradite, so I'm not worried.

How about this?

I'm not trying to worry you.

I'm pointing out the reality.

It is now illegal to insult people in many countries.

Criminally illegal.

And there is precedent in the U.K. for arresting somebody because he was charged with defaming the dead in Germany.

That's why Freedom of Speech was the FIRST amendment.

I'm not worried about what they do anywhere else.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Jamie1

Germany has laws against public holocaust denial. Which he was convicted of violating, and served his sentence for and was released. Then German prosecutors got a warrant issued for him because of stuff he posted online several years later. The Brits arrested him because of that warrant. A British court then struck down the warrant and denied extradition.

You misunderstand the article, which is easy to do since it omits a number of pertinent facts. He wasn't charged with defaming the dead, he was convicted of it. Along with incitement to racial hatred, public denial of the holocaust, etc.

Oh, and a German judge then said he couldn't be prosecuted for posts on the Internet unless they originated while he was physically in Germany.

if you're going to point out "reality" then point out all of it

Thanks for the information. I appreciate it!!

That case illustrates my point.

"Holocaust denial" is a crime all over Europe.

Is it a far stretch to think that "9/11 Denial" might be criminalized in the U.S.?

How about "Terrorism Denial" in Paris?

It's already close to happening. They arrested a comedian for tweeting something that was mocking the "I Am Charlie" movement.

The irony, twisted as it may be, is that the "movement" is portrayed as support for Charlie Hebdo to publish a paper that Muslims find so insulting that it caused them to commit mass murder.

What did the tweet do? "Mock" Charlie Hebdo?