France’s most esteemed newspaper Le Monde has been convicted of racial defamation by a French court. They are appealing. Of course, this could open up litigation for similar defamations all over Europe.
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
Any word on the possible cost of this to Le Monde? Is the potential fine something like ten francs payable when France withdraws from the Euro?
For what little it’s worth, my favorite portion of the article Roger linked to is:
To the Left, no words are ever defamation unless spoken by The Other and no such case belongs in the courts unless they win it.
Thank God for our First Amendment rights. I am totally against the criminalization of outrageous speech. We should never forget that the great Bernard Lewis was also found guilty in a French court for alleged holocaust denying. Le Monde should have instead been found guilty in the court of public opinion.
David Thomson:
While I tend to agree with you that the best answer would be for the court of public opinion to condemn Le Monde, reality suggests that would never happen in the present climate. The problem is that in Europe information is so tightly controlled (the way John Kerry et al wish it were controlled here) that the court of public opinion only gets to hear the eveidence from one side of the argument. If the accused cannot even be heard in court, they are unable to mount a defence, even against the most scurrilous slander.
Europe seems to be well behind the USA in the effect of the blogosphere breaking the monopoly of the MSM on the news. Until people get to see more of what is occurring with thier own eyes, rather than as edited to fit the MSM’s favorite memes, people will be forming opinions based on biased information.
On an optimistic note, some have suggested that part of the rejection of the EU constitution had to do with bloggers presenting alternatives to the officially approved (by the elites) POV.
Roger,
The WSJ link is only for pay subsribers. Perhaps, you could copy a few of the key paragraphs and post them.
Knucklehead,
Any word on the possible cost of this to Le Monde?
I believe it was a symbolic 1 Euro, can’t find the reference right now.
Chuck,
That wouldn’t suprise me.
A two-edged sword, clearly. Won’t the anti-defamation laws be used more and more by Muslim and other non-Jewish “victims”? It’s a tough choice and one I hope Americans never face, the harm of inflammatory and defamatory speech and the good of honest and free expression.
– the piece says that all occupiers behave the same way.–
Really.
We controlled Germany? We put bases there, but I don’t recall settlers.
We should have controlled Germany, they would have been better off.
Meanwhile, the witch hunt against Oriana Fallaci for stating the truth about Europe’s Muslims and EUrabia continues apace as she stands trial to defend her new book in Italy.
They tried to make her recant her book before that in a similar “hate speech” trial in France.
I don’t mean to disillusion Roger, but I don’t think the outcome of this case is the beginning of the end of a culture of anti-Semitism in Old Europe.
It’s just window dressing…and it took a lawsuit, which as others point out, most people will either ignore or not even notice.
The French press (as well as the French mindset) is so Leftist and pro-Paleostinian and anti-Israel it’s ridiculous and that’s not going to change anytime soon.
“Publish and be damned” is the order of the day–to stop this, you’d have to sue the paper almost constantly.
French media is like our MSM, only worse–it’s a sickness, really.
ìWhile I tend to agree with you that the best answer would be for the court of public opinion to condemn Le Monde, reality suggests that would never happen in the present climate.î
ìBest answer?î Iím sorry, but there is no viable alternative. There is no second best answer! Criminalizing speech is simply tyrannical. The Europeans cannot save themselves unless they begin to embrace the principle of free speech. This is nonnegotiable. I hope these fools soon get their act together. Time may not be on their side.
JenLart,
The French press (as well as the French mindset) is so Leftist and pro-Paleostinian and anti-Israel it’s ridiculous and that’s not going to change anytime soon.
Should we expect otherwise from the French? I mean, comeon, that checkered tablecloth thingie is much more chic either as headdress or scarf than anything the Jews or Israelis ever conjured up.
Get your priorities in order willya. Once the kibutzes fell out of fashion Israel was useless as far as Europeans were concerned. There’s just nothing the least bit fashionable about defending oneself. Grab a checkered tablecloth, and faux AK, a Yassar t-shirt and go forth and shriek among the crowds, however, and you’re stylin’ with the big dogs.
So much for freedom of speech.
I’ve got to come down on the free speech side. I think a large part of the problem in Europe is a disconnect between the rulers and the ruled, a disconnect exacerbated by government ownership of radio and television outlets. Anti-semitism is there, but so is a suppressed anti-muslim part. These things need to be in the open and there needs to be discussion, argument, and maybe fisticuffs. Otherwise, the alternative to free speech is likely to be sudden upheavals and violence.
David,
The court of public opinion in Europe? You are indeed an optimist. I’m afraid that it is a Kangaroo court made up of Jew-hating intellectuals and Muslims. However I do agree with you about the importance of our right to free speech in this country. God forbid if the PC crowd gets its way and we start passing hate speech laws. Most of us on this blog would be in violation of such laws.
knucklehead:
Prepare to be unsurprised.
“In a ruling hailed by French Jewish groups, the court ordered Jean-Marie Colombani and the three writers to pay a symbolic one euro in damages to the France-Israel Association and to Lawyers Without Borders, according to The Guardian.”
From the haaretz article linked.
Chuck -
You’re right is was 1 Euro which they haven’t paid yet. They didn’t even force them to apologize which would be more important and the decision was an overturn of a lower court decision for Le Monde.
David -
I agree with the Free Speech laws.
But France already has them and you can’t say a word about anyone except its open season on Jews I mean ‘Zionists’ and Israel.
The thing is the US has more free speech and less radicalism. You could argue that is because of the free speech laws here, but in my opinion its more a product of the general culture and the 2 party system for all its flaws, forces centrism.
However, the radical left, Columbia professors, Hollywood liberals, University Marxists, George Soros etc… are trying to convince us that Europe has it right and wey’re ‘barbarians’… and some or most of them would like to undo the general zeitgeist of this country.
The balance and centrism as well as our Republic structure verus Parliamentary structure is our comparative advantage.
And while I don’t agree with (quote/unquote) ‘Middle America’ on everything their comparative conservatism is what balances off this country if keeps it center or a hair right of center.
If Cynthia McKinney had her own political party and got elected to Congress on it we’d have to listen to her assinine speeches on CNN every night like Galloway in Britain.
The thing is the US has more free speech and less radicalism.
Except on campuses, where “offensive” speech is determined and punished by ivory tower types and PC believers. Since when are pro-Israeli Jews and conservatives adjudged to have been “offended” by extremist teachings and rhetoric aimed at them?
Mike,
I live in McKinney’s district, and have to second your “assinine” characterization of her. She does, indeed have nine of ‘em.
This disturbs me, as well. The fact that it’s nominally criminal isn’t the main thing that bothers me; the penalty is a whole lot like that frequently handed down as damages in torts cases in Great Britain, and it may well be that the French make a different distinction between criminal and civil cases from the one that we in the common law tradition make.
What bothers me is that it is the expression of opinion, however contemptible, that is being penalized. Expression of opinion must be free.
The occasional televised asinine rant is a price well worth paying for freedom of speech!
My impression has been that Le Monde is generally considered the “government” paper. Perhaps someone more familiar with the French scene can set this straight.
Le Monde is a French daily evening newspaper with a circulation in 2002 of 389,200. It is considered the French newspaper of record, and is generally respected …
Le Monde was founded by Hubert Beuve-MÈry at the request of General Charles de Gaulle after the German army was driven from Paris during World War II. Beuve-MÈry reportedly demanded total editorial independence as the condition for his taking on the project. Its first edition appeared on November 19, 1944.
Anyway, I think one of the difficulties of having American style freedom of expression is government ownership of the airwaves. European talk radio along American lines could be very interesting…
Just some rhetorical questions re: the freedom of speech portion of this thread.
First, is there “freedom of speech” in France? I don’t claim to know for sure. My best guess is that there is something approximating it. If, however, taking this sort of thing into the courts to decide is the standard procedure, then why shouldn’t that standard procedure not be available to Jewish organizations? Do newspapers or other media get sued if they say negative things about muslims or for comments about, as an example, the Turks in the recent EU constitution discussion? Italy is obviously not France but Oriana Fallaci is being sued for something similar to this for writing a book in Italy. Just asking.
Related to this is whether or not Le Monde of the French (or European) media in general are government controlled or not. It strikes me as interesting that European governments – particularly the EU bureaucracy – seem entirely free to use public funds to market/advertise for whatever they want. If the government is free to pour money into advocacy and also controls the media to a greater or lesser extent, then what recourse to slanderous or dangerous or fraudulent “opinion” pieces does the public have other than the courts?
Last, but not least, if the penalty is purely symbolic then how much suppression of free speech is there here? Granted, I wouldn’t like it here in the US if the courts started handing out $1 fines to morons like Krugman because they could crank up the fine thumbscrews any time it suits them, but if this is Normal Operating Procedure in France…
Knucklehead,
The problem of laws against hate speech is that they lend themselves to differential enforcement and de facto censorship. This is what has happened in Europe. But you are right, given such laws and the resulting censorship, it is necessary to do what can be done to balance the scales.
I’m with David Thompson. I abhor anti-semitism and would fight it at every turn, but this is not the way. But then, I know little about 1st Amendment type rights under French law. I do know that the standards for defamation/slander over there are far more stringent than ours (I remember Clinton had to change some of the stuff about Ken Starr in his book for the European editions in order to steer clear of this kind of trouble).
Since the “Non!”, capital flows from Europe into our equity markets have been noticeable enough to cause drops in volume mid-day, as soon as the european mrkts close. Old Europe is being flooded with ‘reform now’ signals. The socialist information-controllers (“arbitrators”, in Kerry’s recent terminology), just before the “Non!” got a terrific arse-kicking in the German Rhine/Westphalia elections. Change is afoot, the status quo is melting like that witch when Dorothy sloshed water on her.
BTW, Europe is a big part of the demand that is keeping our long Treasury bond yield so low–and fooling many into believing that the flat yield curve is predicting dramatic growth-slowdowns in the USA.
They are appealing.
Sez you.
Buddy:
Buy signal?
Buddy, I was kinda hoping that Soros might be heavily invested in Euros. Probably no such luck.
Chuck,
Understood. I am vehemently opposed to nonsense like hate speech (or any other so-called “hate crime”) laws and will do what I can to fight against them here in the USA. But if the French already have them (don’t know, don’t follow their situation carefully enough) then that’s the only tool available to those who are slandered the way Le Monde slandered Jews and Israelis. If they’ve made all the problems look like nails then the citizens are going to use hammers to solve every problem.
Chuck,
I thought I read it some time ago that both Soros and Buffet were shorting dollars.
It true, I say that ours is just and decent God.
How come everybody here ranted about Fallaci being taken to court by Muslims and over the restriction of free speech in Europe in her case? The anti-Semitism in Europe is foul and rampant, but these anti-defamation laws are going to bite back and hard.
Knucklehead, (I hate the way that sounds like I’m insulting you…anyway) your point is well taken that given the environment, this group must defend itself, but I guess my counterpoint to that is that I’m just as disappointed that one can’t even make a fairly subtle point against a group without fear of legal process of whatever kind.
It’s not right when it’s Oriana Fallaci and it’s not right here. In fact, I think the overarching point of this issue is that freedom of speech transcends what’s being said by whatever group.
To lose that is to lose the thread, which is freedom. Balancing out is a terrible, terrible thing to try to do because there’s no end to the state intervention that will be necessary to keep it up.
Hmmm…So how could American style freedom of speech get introduced in Europe? I don’t believe even England has anything like the first amendment. The only hope I can see the rise of alternative media. English as a common language and the internet may be the best bet, as borders no longer matter. What we should watch for is any attempt to regulate the internet or let “international law” take effect. Wasn’t there some attempt to censor a US book by suing the author in England?
Speaking of which, is there any problem ordering from Amazon in the US and getting books deliverd in Europe?
I don’t know about Soros…he was short the Dollar not long ago–I assumed that was why he wanted into the pres cmpgn, to help JFK2 win, pull out of the mideast, let the Dollar track way down as oil tracked way up. But he may have unwound since Nov 2. Warren Buffett is short the Dollar–as are some big hot-money hedge funds that are trying to unwind on a daily basis since the GM downgrade caught them on the wrong side of two big moves. Charlie, I’m in about 60% but I wish it were 80. I’m just too chicken to chase until Greenspan lets the last shoe drop.
He said to the Int. Monetary Conf in China last night that (here I characterize), ‘our flattening yield curve did not necessarily mean recession, that “new” market forces are at work in the flat-curve ‘conundrum’, and that the hedges are going to have to watch their risk/reward ratios going forward since the EZ money has been made already’.
Of course, he speaketh in code, and the message seems to be that ‘your Fed is watching closely and will not misinterpret the environment again, like it did in the bubble of the 90s’.
A lot of smart people are buying the cyclicals again, too. And semiconductors are up 30% (sox index) since early May. So, I dunno–things look good for another year of 3.5 or 4% growth. Not too shabby. And more and more people are understanding what the trade deficit really is–another bullish learning curve. If you bought the three big ETFs right now, I’d say it’s very conservatively 3-to-2 you’ll be up–maybe a lot–a year from now, up better than a money-market return. Don’t forget your trailing stops, tho, if you can’t stand a dip. Big headline, or ‘event’ risk in the terror war. Long term, the USA is still the global repository of first choice for excess capital. We still da banker, and we still solid. The ‘event’ risk shouldn’t worry a long-term investor.
Thank your military, for protecting the value of all the work that has been done by your ancestors as well as yourself.
Chuck and Jim Mc,
I may have come across as if I’m trying to defend speech control laws or the sort of courtroom recourse this case is all about. I’m not.
I think the US has it nearly as close to correct as it can be made – there’s room for some improvement (unload the stupid McCain-Feingold legislation). No shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater, some limitations on “commercial speech”, no unfettered vulgarity on the publicly owned broadcast spectrum, a hard job to prove lible or slander…
We don’t have complete “freedom of speech” here in the US but we don’t have much in the way of significant restrictions either (aside from the realities of economics and who’s got access to the bullier pulpits and the like).
But, for the sake of discussion, consider how we might proceed if we had actual hate speech laws or, heaven forbid, a nationalized speech code such as the Oregon thread talked about.
How would you fight against that in addition to trying to get the laws changed? If you could be sued for writing a book that, while accurate, said negative things about Islam yet were subjected to slander against other groups, how to fight that sort of thing? Getting into court and winning cases seems a reasonable path to me. In fact, I’d support swarming the courts until they realize they can’t possibly enforce such stupid legislation.
It’s a good point you make, Knucklehead (I’m still chuckling at that…sorry). I think I’m experiencing a certain amount of shock at the realization that that is the situation they are in there.
The erosion of freedom of speech has happened so quietly in Europe that it’s not even a story here. I don’t mean to sound overly dramatic, because there are plenty of people here who say crazy things like that all the time, but there’s nothing comparable. Yet it’s a non-story.
And about the changing of the laws, why aren’t people screaming bloody murder and trying to change the laws? It’s as though no one cares about that and that the people of these countries have democratically eliminated freedom of speech.
“…the people of these countries have democratically eliminated freedom of speech.”
Maybe a response to the Hundred Year’s War of the 20th century?
Jim Mc,
Don’t worry about the Knucklehead thing. I wear that shoe because it fits.
Please say more about what you mean, Buddy.
Oh, now, can someone please translate Buddy’s econospeak? I might have $20 extra this week and be looking for investments.
Maybe a response to the Hundred Year’s War of the 20th century?
Thirty Years War would be a better parallel. It’s when the French, those dirty bastards, first stole Alsace from the Germans
So your point is that perhaps they’re so fatigued from a century of war that they feel that a loss of freedom of speech is a small price to pay for amity?
If that’s true, I think those who believe that have really, really missed the point of the whole ‘freedom’ thing, but you may well be right.
Jim, I was kicking myself on that very point–that if freedom of speech is dangerous, why the hell are we writing to this blog in the first place? And sorry for the eco-babble…Charlie scared me with that ‘buy signal’ question…I wanted to say ‘yes’ but then got to explaining and explaining. It made no sense to me either. And i don’t call it $20–I call it “a percentage of my cash assets”.
Jim Mc,
I don’t think any of the European countries have ever had something like the first amendment. But I agree with Buddy that the present sensitivity to hate speech derives from WWII. Mein Kampf, for instance, is outlawed in Germany. Of course, the present day Nazis can go to US sites, and I believe there was a case in Germany about this, where the German courts tried to shut down a US site. My memory is a bit vague about that, though.
You can imagine the impetus for banning specific things like “Mein Kampf,” and you’re right that that is a legacy of WWII. This other stuff is new, it seems. Germans, in your example, are deeply ashamed of Nazism (and they damn well should be!) so there’s an emotional logic to banning the wellspring of that shame, but why the rest?
Jim Mc,
I don’t know, but my sense is that the European elites are terrified of anti-Muslim prejudices getting out of hand. For example, more than 60% of Germans don’t like their Turks, many of whom were born and raised Germany. The French have similar prejudices against the North Africans. I think this simering racism is why there is such excessive sensitivity to Muslims. I can’t imagine it really fools anyone, so it is unlikely to help. If the lid ever pops, it could get pretty ugly over there.
Looks could be deceiving. Look how black vs white here in USA plays over there.
This is all bad.
My point was, USA is a model multiracial society, by and large–yet the 60s agitprop version lives on the minds of much of the world. It’s one of the standard canards. Hence, one wonders what the true picture of the Muslim integration in France really is. A minor societal bump in the road, or a pressure cooker.
Buddy,
Looks could be deceiving. Look how black vs white here in USA plays over there.
I keep trying to puzzle out what you mean here…too many possibilities. Could you expand a bit?
How’d you like THAT, Chuck? Can’t tell ya how i did it, tho, Penn & Teller are bad enough about giving everything away.
Buddy,
Yeah, it is hard to tell. But I don’t get the feeling that integration is going well over there. One of the famous French black entrepreneurs (can’t remember who) got his motivation while visiting relatives in the US. His first big surprise came at the airport where there were black cops, unlike France, the second was that his relatives had a nice home and a car. Course, the French version of the US is cops shooting down black folk in the streets everyday just for the hell of it.
I also recall the reading about a very pro-Muslim Swedish minister getting drunk and letting loose a tirade of racist filth. I have read stories about tensions in the Dutch schools, etc., etc. But you are right, it is hard, if not impossible, for an American to judge at this distance. I am just using my common sense here. Perhaps folks with more experience of the European situation can weigh in.
Not to say that race problems USA 60s were ‘minor societal bumps in the road’…of course we all know the history. I’ve got major Postum Obscurata disease today.
Ha, ha, Buddy, big secret. You don’t think I know about your invisible spies? I do watch the fluid level in the vodka bottle, you know.
Well, if the consensus here is correct wrt the result of PC-thought, then we can safely assume that much of what needs air in old Europe ain’t getting any.
Chuck,
I do watch the fluid level in the vodka bottle, you know.
Than why, exactly, did mine just go empty? Always thinking of yourself. Never a thought for me. Would it have killed you to stop by the liquor store and replenish my supply since you knew it was perilously low?
It’s when ya can’t make to the liquor store that you’re most in tune with yourself.
Being drunk is Nature’s way of saying “You’re drunk!”
Being drunk is Nature’s way of saying “You’re drunk!”
I thought is was Nature’s way of recycling cars. Termites for the trees, dung beetles for the dung, drunk drivers for the cars.
It’s when ya can’t make to the liquor store that you’re most in tune with yourself.
Hmmm… perhaps. I gotta ponder that one a while. Unfortunately, since I’m outta vokka, I may need some help from the 18 year ol’ Glenmorangie I hide from my guests to protect it for just such emergencies. I’d share it with you but that selfish Chuck ain’t gettin’ a drop if I found him washed up on an island.
Oh, now, can someone please translate Buddy’s econospeak?
Really. Give it to me in language I can understand. Like yesterday when my husband came in to inform me “We’re goin’ back in!”. That I understood.
Kyda,
…yesterday when my husband came in to inform me “We’re goin’ back in!”.
Elaborate, please. Pretty please?
Yes, did you have time for a shot of Vodka first?
“Throw open the door!
We’ll use the floor!”
Said Barnacle Bill to Kyda.
uh, are my apologies any good, Kyda? I got carried away.
Roger:
I have no pity for Le Monde and the fact that France has these absurd rules I am glad that le Monde was tagged. But hate speech laws , beyond libel, that penalize speech do not work and they cause great damage.
The vast majority of the French chattering classes are rabidly anti- Israel. This ruling will only cause them to be more subtle in expressing the very same thoughts. It is better to know that someone is a racist then to try to interpret code language.
Hate speech crimes are always going to be abused. You canset up a libel law system that might not be perfect but it can be set up. If I beat someone or kill them the I should be punished regardless what my politics or religion is. Deciding the degree of “hate” is such a vague term that it will eventually be used to resrict or criminalize thought and speech. It is the ultimate tool of a repressive state. I don’t have to use logic, reason and history to show that your arguments are wrong, I can get a lawyer to prove that you have hate in your heart and put you in jail before you have committed a crime.
It is often a hard and seemingly hopeless effort to halt the vile Protocols of Zion mentality that infects this world. But declaring it illegal will not change the hate that flows from people who swallow this bile. they will just learn to hide it behind vague terms that there fellow bigots will learn and absorb. I feel safer that a Ward Churchill, David Duke, Edward Said, and Noam Chomsky are allowed to freely spew their vomit from their minds and that I don’t have to guess whether or not what they are saying is what I think it is. By having them out in the open it allows me to watch my back and make sure that they never achieve power.
Damn good points Kevin P. Keep the danger in view when you can. Though I do lose sight of the fluid level of the vino occasionally.
What, y’all couldn’t follow that? I/he meant that he’s poised to start moving funds out of money markets and index funds and back into the rough and tumble of in and out trading (I thought that’s what we were talking about–what did your dirty little minds conjure up?). I try not to pay much attention when we’re in this phase. Too stressful. Thankfully he doesn’t come at me in Buddyspeak.;)
(Your apologies are always good with me, Buddy, and don’t feel bad. Trust me, I could hold my own in a marine barracks if necessary.)
as i’ve said before in these pages, speaking as a european immigrant to the USA, it took a majority of my 20 years in this country to fully understand and accept the beauty of the First Amendment.
Upon getting it, i finally understood how pedestrian the ‘sophisticated’ perspective on this subject really is. (and by the way, the more passionate commenters on this site — which is arguably published in France too — are liable for criminal defamation charges in that country too.)
to my american brothers and sisters: never ever permit impingement on the First Amendment. That way lies ruin.
And, ask around in Africa, Europe, the MidEast, and the Far East, ya need a Second Amendment to make the first one stick.
right on, BL.
(Go Rice/Larsen ’08!)
“ya need a Second Amendment to make the first one stick.”
Most of the Iraqi tribes had guns and fighters. Heck, I loved the picture of a grey haired Iraqi grandmother in a black lace mantilla holding an AK-47 and smiling gently. It was in The View from Baghdad, a blog no longer on line
( Anyway, guns no longer do it. Every man needs a tank, or at least RPG’s and maybe some artillery and shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles.
In the future, the well armed citizen might have use for plague, smallpox, designer flu, and tactical nuclear weapons as defensive aids. Now *that* will put the poison in the rattlesnake fangs. But I want to be far away when it happens.
But, Chuck, you have to admit Iraq under Saddam was unique. Really, really, unique.
Buddy,
…Iraq under Saddam was unique…
Maybe that’s why the Left is so enamored with Saddam’s Iraq. It was a reminder of happier times when they had Hitler to hate and Stalin to love. He gave them so much of both and they just don’t know how to replace it.
Banning speech is tyrannical and is perceived as such. Not a good thing.
I’d rather see an huge expansion of French-language blogs and other such things. Anybody know how internet use is growing over there?