patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,235,761 comments by 14,778 users - Blue, Patrick online now
France is not consistent about freedom of speech
invite response
2015 Jan 13, 11:00pm 16,510 views 66 comments
« First « Previous Comments 63 - 66 of 66 Search these comments
France gets less than 200k immigrants a year from the entire world, many are retirees. That's not any kind of substantial contribution to the economy of a country of 64 million people.
The total number of french people from recent immigration origins (1st and 2nd generations) is about 12 millions. Or nearly 20% of the total. This may not pay all pensions, but I'd say it helps quite a bit.
That;s going back 60 years for christ sakes. Be serious. More than a few are collecting pensions at this point not paying in.
Dan8267 says
They are not relevant to the idea I'm conveying. And quite frankly, you cannot have any idea of how well I understand any parts of the law because I have not discuss legality
Actually you do both Dan. You often switch between ideas and legality with a foot in each world. In my experience, no one who has a practical understanding of the law speaks with the sort of absolutes that you do. Ive never seen anything quite like it. If you were an attorney and you spoke like that in open court, you would almost certainly would have been sanctioned for comity or candor by now.
On the other hand, much of the time you are just "talking & shit", spouting your opinions and viewpoints the way a lot of people do on Patnet, and 99.5% of the time, I don't give you grief in the slightest. While unorthodox, I find your ideas interesting.
You will notice, the only time I give you grief is the other 0.5% of the time when you get all Clarrence Darrow on us and pontificiate in an axiomatic, black and white way. Here is a brief example of what I am talking about (boldface mine):
Regardless of what you call it, placing a civilian in handcuffs is by definition arrest
Getting an unverified call that a couple in engaging in sex in a car -- which there is no evidence is the truth -- is not probable cause by any standard.
The Fourth Amendment is irrelevant
I still stand by that my statement that handcuffing a person is a form of arrest as defined here. And to back that up, New York v. Quarles, supra; United States v. Purry (D.C. Cir. 1976) 545 F.2nd 217, 220.
Our courts violate the First Amendment by prohibiting people from telling prospective jurors about jury nullification.
if I understand your argument, you are claiming that courts have not violated First Amendment rights regarding freedom of speech about jury nullification because there was only one case of a person being arrested for it and he was acquitted by the judge.
If that is your argument, then it is incorrect
the Forchion case is a clear indication of the state violating the First Amendment rights of a citizen
Court gag orders are also an affront to the First Amendment.
And gag orders are the very definition of not content neutral as what's being gag is specific content.
None of the above are "ideas". They are statements of Black Letter Law which all happen to be in some way shape or form, wrong. Had it been clear you didn't know (or claim to know) about these things I wouldn't care. However, most of the time, you portray a black and white image of what the law IS, which simply isn't so clear cut. Its no different from when I see some of the 1Ls armed with a modicum of "knowledge" get all puffed up in mock court:
1L: "oh your honor, it is indisputable that ABC applies here...
Judge: Indisputable? Did you read XYZ? Is ABC really indisputable or is it possible XYZ could be operative?
1L: Um, Er, Sorry, I meant to say it is likely that ABC applies here...
Judge: That's what I thought...don't make your case out to be so clear cut when its not. That sort of bullshit doesn't fly here.
So in any event, the same thing goes here Dan. Cut down on all the axiomatic legalese and I wont give you grief. Or couch the legalese (e.g. in my understanding, a person is arrested when... or according to the Daily Sheeple, the first amendment was violated when...) either way, I wont care.
Alternatively, you could come back from U of M or Nova SE and I very likely will defer to your knowledge as it will come from someone who understands the elements of nuance that make up all these matters as to what the law "is".
Dan8267
2015 Jan 15, 8:13pm
You often switch between ideas and legality with a foot in each world.
Honey, you're mixing two entirely different conversations and losing the context of both.
« First « Previous Comments 63 - 66 of 66 Search these comments
The only good argument I've heard from Muslims about the Charlie Hebdo massacre is that there are other restrictions on freedom of speech in France already (holocaust and armenian genocide denial and insulting the French flag are all illegal in France). So, they say, why shouldn't insulting Mohammed also be illegal in France?
Of course this does not excuse the murders, but if France really wants to defend free speech, they must be consistent about it and allow holocaust denial and insults to their own flag.
There are American laws prohibiting the burning of the US flag, but the US Supreme Court bless their souls actually takes freedom of speech seriously and rules that such laws violate the Constitution.
Why can't France do the same? If they're serious about freedom of speech, they should be consistent about it.