It is soon going to be illegal in France to record and/or broadcast acts of violence unless you are a professional journalist. The apparent motivation behind this is to crack down on people who film their friends performing violent acts and then post the videos for others’ amusement. I guess the French just completely ignored the whole idea of bystanders filming something like police brutality or other acts of violence that might be useful as, um, evidence in criminal trials? Then again, what do you expect from the country that banned Muslims (and other religious groups) from wearing religious garb in public schools because, well, they felt threatened by New York’s ban on using your iPod in a crosswalk and wanted to prove that when it comes to being a Big Brother state, they are still number 1!
France’s ability to pass laws and take stands that infuriate both the left and the right continually astound me. How could one country be so wrong according to so many people?
As much as David never ceases to annoy me with his viewpoints and arguments, at least I can take comfort in the fact that David expresses one true-blue American trait: He hates the French! :-P
So I guess if (God forbid) there were a 9/11-style terrorist attack in France, anyone who caught in on home video, like so many in New York did, could be prosecuted?
Under a law like this in the US, both the Zapruder film and the Rodney King tape would be illegal, especially the latter. But . . .
What bothers me less than the “record . . . acts of violence” aspect is the “professional journalist” one. This phrase would imply some sort of journalistic guild one would have to belong to, as opposed to a kindergarten teacher sitting down, writing about a weekend on the Bolivar Peninsula and dashing it off to a travel magazine. If we are looking for implications in this country, look first at the bloggers, whom the speech restriction people (ahem, “campaign finance reform” types) would love to get their hands on. This would be accomplished by setting up a bill of specifics for “journalists” and “non-journalists” (Time.com in the first category, and–sorry, Brendan–The Irish Trojan in the second).
Remember: McCain/Feingold passed because newspapers and magazines received a complete exemption. (In other words, the New York Times can spent thousands in salaries, printer’s ink, computer software, editors, truck drivers and delivery persons to put out a five-part article on “Why Bush Sucks,” but if I Xerox a single handbill entitled “Vote for Smith” and hand it out on a street corner 59 days before an election, I’ve broken federal law). It was in every establishment news agency to support McCain/Feingold–it reduced the number of competing voices. Look for the same support when journalistic guilds are spoken of.
The really bad thing about the headscarf law is that Christians were still allowed to wear their religious paraphanalia (crucifixes, etc.) openly in public schools. Not that many did, because it’s France!
Man, do they know how to cook though. Mmmmm, creme brulee…..
There was an excellent article recently in the WSJ discussing how common law-based systems do not measure up to the European continental Napoleonic code-based systems when it comes to fighting terrorism. Money quote:
All this calls into question the seriousness, if not the sincerity, of European complaints that under the Bush administration the U.S. has become a serial human-rights violator. Europeans have every right to be proud of civil servants like Mr. Bruguiere and a legal tradition that in many ways has been remarkably successful against terrorism. But that is not the American way, nor can it be if we intend to be true to a constitutional order of checks and balances, judicial review and a high respect for the rights of the accused.
I find it fascinating that the European legal systems are incredibly more flexible and state-friendly rather than civil liberties-friendly — and this latest French law is no exception — and yet the Europeans are far more gutless than we in actually wielding the power to catch terrorists and other threats to Western civilization.
David, I cite Andrew & Sean’s comments above as circumstantial Evidence for my belief that for a (fellow) liberal Democrat, you are unusually (and Commendably :) anti-Statist in your philosophy :). Tres bon.
Kristin, are you sure about that? I had thought I recalled reading, at the time of the big Headscarf hoo-raw, that French public-school students were indeed prohibited from Accessorizing their Outfits with any Religious symbolisms, on the basis that the State is resolutely & entirely Secular there.
In addition to the various concerns already expressed, it occurs to me that in This country anyway, the idiotic self-publication on the Web of self-recorded acts of (and/or, Practice for) random Violence, has sometimes led the police straight to the moronic Perpetrators and/or Planners thereof. (In my town this happened recently, re the apparent/alleged Planning & Target Practice for a Columbine-style assault on the high school.)
Now, if it is plausibly & Expertly suggested that the very availability of the You-Tube type technology significantly incentivizes the Committing of these crimes ~ i.e. that notably Fewer such attacks would occur in the absence of the self-publication potential ~ then at least the French proposal makes some degree of Sociological, albeit not U.S.-constitutional, sense. / But if NOT ~ if punks will be Punks in similar abundances regardless of the Moviemaking angle ~ then I say why not just let the dumb Thugs keep putting their ugly Mugs on The Internets, the more speedily to bring their sorry Asses to Justice? ;>
Joe - should your “the more speedily to bring their sorry Asses to Justice? ;>” not have been “the more speedily to bring their sorry Asses to Assizes? ;>”, for assonance ?
Well i’m not really a liberal Democrat, i suppose i am on some issues, but i’m more than willing to embrace small government when it will work better than bloated government. I think there is a good balance, the French have just gone way overboard. Waaaaaaaaaay overboard.
IIRC you were allowd to wear small things like a pin with a cross on it or something that wasn’t large and visible. Which of course allows for the wearing of crosses and such but prohibits headscarves so ends up pretty much being tilted against Muslims.
Alasdair, you asinine asymptotically-aspiring astrological aesthete: Yes :>. However, just because ye don’t know your Joneses from yer Astors doesn’t necessarily entitle yez to cast Aspersions :>.
March 6th, 2007 at 5:38:20 pm
France’s ability to pass laws and take stands that infuriate both the left and the right continually astound me. How could one country be so wrong according to so many people?
March 6th, 2007 at 5:42:05 pm
I like their wine. I’m sorry, what were we talking about?
March 6th, 2007 at 6:58:34 pm
As much as David never ceases to annoy me with his viewpoints and arguments, at least I can take comfort in the fact that David expresses one true-blue American trait: He hates the French! :-P
March 6th, 2007 at 7:28:25 pm
So I guess if (God forbid) there were a 9/11-style terrorist attack in France, anyone who caught in on home video, like so many in New York did, could be prosecuted?
March 6th, 2007 at 7:40:29 pm
Under a law like this in the US, both the Zapruder film and the Rodney King tape would be illegal, especially the latter. But . . .
What bothers me less than the “record . . . acts of violence” aspect is the “professional journalist” one. This phrase would imply some sort of journalistic guild one would have to belong to, as opposed to a kindergarten teacher sitting down, writing about a weekend on the Bolivar Peninsula and dashing it off to a travel magazine. If we are looking for implications in this country, look first at the bloggers, whom the speech restriction people (ahem, “campaign finance reform” types) would love to get their hands on. This would be accomplished by setting up a bill of specifics for “journalists” and “non-journalists” (Time.com in the first category, and–sorry, Brendan–The Irish Trojan in the second).
Remember: McCain/Feingold passed because newspapers and magazines received a complete exemption. (In other words, the New York Times can spent thousands in salaries, printer’s ink, computer software, editors, truck drivers and delivery persons to put out a five-part article on “Why Bush Sucks,” but if I Xerox a single handbill entitled “Vote for Smith” and hand it out on a street corner 59 days before an election, I’ve broken federal law). It was in every establishment news agency to support McCain/Feingold–it reduced the number of competing voices. Look for the same support when journalistic guilds are spoken of.
March 6th, 2007 at 8:07:04 pm
Oh, France, I try to defend you… why, there’s an entire region there that’s the plural of my last name! But then you go and pull stuff like this…
March 6th, 2007 at 8:15:57 pm
The really bad thing about the headscarf law is that Christians were still allowed to wear their religious paraphanalia (crucifixes, etc.) openly in public schools. Not that many did, because it’s France!
Man, do they know how to cook though. Mmmmm, creme brulee…..
March 6th, 2007 at 8:48:12 pm
There was an excellent article recently in the WSJ discussing how common law-based systems do not measure up to the European continental Napoleonic code-based systems when it comes to fighting terrorism. Money quote:
I find it fascinating that the European legal systems are incredibly more flexible and state-friendly rather than civil liberties-friendly — and this latest French law is no exception — and yet the Europeans are far more gutless than we in actually wielding the power to catch terrorists and other threats to Western civilization.
March 6th, 2007 at 9:46:20 pm
To paraphrase Jonah Goldberg . . .
Whatever Andrew’s drinking, pour me a double.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:01:26 pm
David, I cite Andrew & Sean’s comments above as circumstantial Evidence for my belief that for a (fellow) liberal Democrat, you are unusually (and Commendably :) anti-Statist in your philosophy :). Tres bon.
Kristin, are you sure about that? I had thought I recalled reading, at the time of the big Headscarf hoo-raw, that French public-school students were indeed prohibited from Accessorizing their Outfits with any Religious symbolisms, on the basis that the State is resolutely & entirely Secular there.
In addition to the various concerns already expressed, it occurs to me that in This country anyway, the idiotic self-publication on the Web of self-recorded acts of (and/or, Practice for) random Violence, has sometimes led the police straight to the moronic Perpetrators and/or Planners thereof. (In my town this happened recently, re the apparent/alleged Planning & Target Practice for a Columbine-style assault on the high school.)
Now, if it is plausibly & Expertly suggested that the very availability of the You-Tube type technology significantly incentivizes the Committing of these crimes ~ i.e. that notably Fewer such attacks would occur in the absence of the self-publication potential ~ then at least the French proposal makes some degree of Sociological, albeit not U.S.-constitutional, sense. / But if NOT ~ if punks will be Punks in similar abundances regardless of the Moviemaking angle ~ then I say why not just let the dumb Thugs keep putting their ugly Mugs on The Internets, the more speedily to bring their sorry Asses to Justice? ;>
BTW the sponsor of the censorship proposal, Interior Minister Nicholas Sarkozy, is the nominee of Jacque Chirac’s party to succeed him as President of la Republique. Swell. (For those deeply interested, here’s his official Bio ;).
March 7th, 2007 at 8:00:07 pm
Joe - should your “the more speedily to bring their sorry Asses to Justice? ;>” not have been “the more speedily to bring their sorry Asses to Assizes? ;>”, for assonance ?
March 7th, 2007 at 9:32:10 pm
Well i’m not really a liberal Democrat, i suppose i am on some issues, but i’m more than willing to embrace small government when it will work better than bloated government. I think there is a good balance, the French have just gone way overboard. Waaaaaaaaaay overboard.
IIRC you were allowd to wear small things like a pin with a cross on it or something that wasn’t large and visible. Which of course allows for the wearing of crosses and such but prohibits headscarves so ends up pretty much being tilted against Muslims.
March 8th, 2007 at 7:04:52 am
Alasdair, you asinine asymptotically-aspiring astrological aesthete: Yes :>. However, just because ye don’t know your Joneses from yer Astors doesn’t necessarily entitle yez to cast Aspersions :>.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:55:51 pm
Joe - I prefer to cast anagrams …
Of course, I’m now wondering when *you* were last aspersed … ?