French Government Wants To Toss Far-Right Political Leader In Jail For Posting Images Of Terrorist Atrocities
from the headline-writers-already-busy-on-Le-Pen/the-Pen-variations dept
France's decision to inhibit free speech in response to local terrorist attacks has resulted in ridiculous applications of laws being written (and rewritten) on the fly. The current French president -- and supposed moderate -- wants to "ban" fake news and the French government has previously expressed a desire to censor websites for national security reasons. The attack on satirical publication Charlie Hebdo supposedly prompted French government officials to stand in solidarity with free speech. This show of unity was followed immediately by multiple arrests for violations of France's speech laws -- including the arrest of comedian for an anti-Semitic Facebook post and another for posting a video mocking dead policemen.
I'm not sure if this latest action is approaching the French speech law event horizon, but it says nothing good about the current state of speech protections in France.
[Marine] Le Pen, who lost to Emmanuel Macron in last year’s presidential vote, is facing charges of circulating “violent messages that incite terrorism or pornography or seriously harm human dignity”, and that can be viewed by a minor. The crime is punishable by up to three years in prison and a fine of €75,000 (£66,000).
The pictures were posted a few weeks after the Paris terror attacks in November 2015, in which 130 people were killed.
Le Pen leads the far-right political party Front National. She tweeted these images in response to a journalist's comparison of her party to terrorists. This was meant to indicate her party wasn't actually involved in the execution and torture of political and religious enemies, unlike ISIS. It's an easy point to make and even easier to make badly, as Le Pen did.
The posting was questionable and in poor taste, but it certainly shouldn't be illegal. These are things that actually happened, perpetrated by actual terrorists. Preventing people from using these image in context does nothing to slow the spread of terrorism. All it does is turn contextual use of violent imagery into its own crime, wholly divorced from the criminal acts the law is supposed to be deterring.
It took the French government three years to get around to laying charges. Here's why:
The move by a judge in Nanterre on Thursday came after the national assembly voted in November to strip Le Pen of her parliamentary immunity over the three photos posted in 2015.
This decision could not have been made lightly. This sets precedent for the removal of immunity -- something most members would likely have wanted to leave undisturbed. That it was disturbed suggests the desire to punish Le Pen was greater than the desire to avoid being held accountable for similar actions in the future. It makes no difference to the court who it punishes for violations, but it will make a lot of difference to those who voted to strip immunity when the pendulum swings back the other way and the party in power starts handing out charges for saying the wrong things online.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: france, free speech, marine le pen, violent images
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WhaT?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WhaT?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except it's not "French Government", it's globalists and EU thugs; "Far-Right" means any little bit Nationalist or Populist, and the "Terrorist Atrocities" were most likely done by globalist forces. Other than that, headline is accurate.
Now I'll read to see if you have any clue as to the real story... No, but at least you separate Le Pen from the images and go on to point up the removal of "immunity", showing it's just another word used by the unelected EU thugs to fool the masses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Except it's a long and ignorant title
It's the Globalists again - everyone panic!!!11111
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Except it's not "French Government", it's globalists and EU thugs; "Far-Right" means any little bit Nationalist or Populist, and the "Terrorist Atrocities" were most likely done by globalist forces. Other than that, headline is accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is awesome!
Keep at each others throats folks, and don't forget to wonder why wars happen! Be sure to call everyone that does not agree with you names! And by all means get those misrepresentations out and beat those political bibles... you have souls to save! Even if it means ostracizing them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: this is awesome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship is censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the delay in voting to strip immunity was only to see if her party would decrease in popularity. This isn't about images she tweeted, this is because she's a threat to the establishment. She's only a threat because the current herd of politicians is doing such an abysmal job. They think the threat of opposition is going to go away with Le Pen, but it clearly will not- she merely fills the void they created.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which makes her a terrorist in their eyes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree with the article. She shouldn't be prosecuted for this.
But I also recognize that when a demagogue whips up fear and hatred against a minority to increase their own political fortunes, there's nothing wrong with pointing out that they bear some responsibility for what happens next.
The Quebec City massacre last year was carried out by a big Marine Le Pen / Donald Trump fan who bought into their anti-immigrant / anti-Muslim propaganda.
Her immunity should be tied to a related issue: Can those criticizing her expect immunity too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To describe Le Pen as "far right" is inaccurate. Her father was far right - but she actually expelled him from what was once his own party.
On many economic issues she is actually well to the left of Macron.32
The reality is that the old left/right labels don't work anymore. We should probably stop using them.
The Quebec City massacre last year was carried out by a big Marine Le Pen / Donald Trump fan who bought into their anti-immigrant / anti-Muslim propaganda.
The Quebec massacre is the regrettable but inevitable backlash from the 32000 plus fatal jihadist attacks that have happened this millenium, coupled with the way MSM media and establishment politicians have cluelessy whitewashed Islam from responsibility. Worldwide Jihad typically kills more people every single day than died in Quebec.
See https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
There are some Islamic scholars who openly admit this - for example this one from Indonesia.
http://time.com/4930742/islam-terrorism-islamophobia-violence/
Trump and Le Pen get a lot of support simply because the mainstream keep bleating that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam but they are not in any way responsible for events like Quebec or Finchley.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The rest of your post certainly adds context to this claim.
You prefer the "white supremacist" label, or just "Nazi?"
No, really. EVERYTHING in your post and links can be said with equal accuracy about Christianity, cherry-picking biblical quotes and extremists the same way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, really. EVERYTHING in your post and links can be said with equal accuracy about Christianity, cherry-picking biblical quotes and extremists the same way.
First off I never actually mentioned Christianity - so for you to raise the issue is pure tu quoque fallacy.
Secondly it simply isn't true and repeating it every time the subject comes up won't make it true.
Find me the 32000+ "Christian Attacks" since 2001.
Did you actually read my second link? Your reply doesn't make any sense in relation to it.
You prefer the "white supremacist" label, or just "Nazi?"
Since you mentioned the Nazis - here is Hitler on the subject of Islam: "Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers -already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity! -then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism [Islam], that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so."
It seems that Hitler could tell the difference between Islam and Christianity - and preferred Islam!
As for white supremacists - well some of them are converting to Islam now - they rather like the Islamic attitude to race, women, and LGBT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Doubling down isn't necessarily convincing. To some it even has the opposite effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
700? How about 70?
There were endless pogroms in Europe before the Holocaust, and there were even pogroms after.
Go back 150 years, and you had Christian nations occupying most of the rest of the world - with assorted genocides - and yes, spreading Christianity was a major motivator. In fact the was the Catholic church that divided up the world and told each European country which part of the rest of the world would be their playground.
In the last century the Christian world had WWI, WWII, the holocaust and the nuking of two cities - with clerics and padres on BOTH the German and Allied sides assuring their respective troops that God thought it was peachy-keen. Nothing in the Islamic world compares to it.
(Yes, even the Nazis had military chaplains to assure the troops that they were doing the right thing and could be proud of their work. Nazi soldiers had the words "Gott mit uns" (God with us) on their belt buckles.)
150 years ago Biblical teachings were commonly used to justify slavery and racism. 50 years ago, they were commonly used to support racism and deny civil rights. When Romney was preaching in France (instead of going to Vietnam), his Christian denomination was still teaching that blacks were cursed and inferior.
Christians committed genocide against Muslims in and around Serbia just a few years ago.
There's the Sabra and Shatila massacre in Lebanon, with the Christian Militia killing somewhere between 800 and 3500 people - depending on whose numbers you believe - in refugee camps.
Here in Canada there's The Sons of Freedom, a sect of Doukhobor anarchists, who have protested nude, blown up power pylons, railroad bridges, and set fire to homes.
Currently in India there's the National Liberation Front of Tripura. Crimes include forcible conversion of tribal cadres/civilians to Christianity.
In Uganda the Lord's Resistance Army, a guerrilla army engaged in an armed rebellion against the Ugandan government, has been accused of using child soldiers and committing numerous crimes against humanity; including massacres, abductions, mutilation, torture, rape, porters and sex slaves. It's led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself the spokesperson of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the Christian Holy Spirit. LRA fighters wear rosary beads and recite passages from the Bible before battle.
And of course there's northern Ireland.
Or how about America....
Christian Science Monitor: Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria.
I'm not justifying what happens in the Islamic world - but the Christian world hasn't been any better until VERY recently - and even then, by taking Christianity out of the picture. As communications technology spread, as secular education spread, and as it became safe to disagree with the clerics, the west became a better place. The Muslim world is going through the same process.
The founding fathers of America get a lot of the credit, thanks to their insisting on separation of church & state. People are free to practice their religion, so long as it doesn't harm others or break laws. It worked for Christianity (eventually) and it'll work for Islam.
It might even work for they guy I was responding to above, defending the actions of a Christian committing a massacre against Muslims in Canada.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Neocons have a hell of a lot to answer for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the gold medal for hypocrisy goes to: France
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Leading_the_People)
It's got the ingredients that make Le Pen's post questionable, plus nipples on top!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And the gold medal for hypocrisy goes to: France
Because nothing says Liberty like topless women!
(both joking and serious)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Breaking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typo
Should probably "That IT was disturbed"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most members?
"members" of what? If you mean members of the national assembly... I don't know how French law works but had they wanted to leave it undisturbed, wouldn't they have voted "no" to directly do that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Most members?
For instance, I don't want to go to work. But, as I've grown accustomed to living indoors with running water and electricity, I opt to go to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Most members?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Most members?
Real adults realize that their decisions are still their decisions even if they didn't like the alternatives and don't try to use bullshit excuses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Euro-trash? The Fourth Reich?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The posting was questionable and in poor taste, but it certainly shouldn't be illegal. "
Certainly? You may not believe it should be illegal, and I may not believe it should be illegal but there's no certainty about it. I can see an arguable case that making deliberately provocative postings should be not be allowed.
Just because the USA raises free speech above almost any other freedom does not mean that's the right thing to do under all circumstances, it isn't. I find a problem with almost all absolute assertions, a good life requires that we all get along and if that means you aren't always free to say exactly what you want exactly how you want to say it, that's not an overwhelming price to pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, in accordance with your own stated beliefs, I think we can come to a compromise where you delete this comment and never make any argument similar to it ever again in public. Surely you're not a hypocrite who would refuse to abide by your own standards?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You see? I just for the sake of civilised debate restricted my own free speech. Your (tongue in cheek) compromise is an example of what I complained about, a wish for black and white in a grey world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah... about that... ever heard of "mission creep," Jeff?
It starts off as a well-meaning attempt to Make Them Behave and ends up muzzling dissent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To break it down: the idea is that if we use new governmental powers to shut up the people we don't like here and now, it will have consequences in the future.
That future is when the people we don't like in politics do inevitably get in power, those new politicians will then have the same powers, only this time, they'll make the people we do like shut up.
You can't avoid letting all people speak if you hope to have public discussions uncensored, it's already being clamped down on with some online platforms. We take our ability to say what we wish so for granted that it's becoming dangerous to think it's always been this way and always will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now the Picture Police?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]