France is not alone in celebrating herself for passing progressive junk law.

Modern democracies are replete with progressive laws that contravene fundamental liberties (e.g., the curtailment of religious expression), that are based on nonfactual notions (e.g., the Kyoto Treaty), or that do not express the will of the majority but the pet biases of minorities of betters (e.g., campaign finance reform).

But France is our topic and comes to our attention because of her latest pretensions. There is this gem, item one:

International experts met Wednesday in Paris to tackle the tricky task of fighting anti-Semitic, racist and xenophobic propaganda on the Internet -- seen as a chief factor in a rise in hate crime.

"Our responsibility is to underline that by its own characteristics -- notably, immediacy and anonymity -- the Internet has seduced the networks of intolerance," French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said in opening remarks at the two-day conference.

France, which is spearheading the effort, has faced a surge in anti-Semitic violence in the last two years. Some fault the growth of Internet use among hate groups.

Robert Badinter, a former French justice minister, said that of 4,000 "racist sites" counted worldwide in 2002, some 2,500 were based in the United States

M. Badinter’s selective statistic is rather meaningless as two years ago server capacity made America the majority provider for almost every site category.

Of course no one has a clue what thin air M. Badinter has pulled his funny numbers from, nor exactly what qualifies a site for censure as “racist” by M. Badinter. No doubt he included this one. And this one. And of course this one, too. Because political thought that is not M. Badinter’s political thought is racist thought.

Progressives believe they have only to knock together fabulous legislation and -- poof! -- no more racism, no more anti-Semitism. But laws are no protection against thoughts, they can only proscribe and penalize acts.

Which brings us to item two another presumptuous French project. Jack, in the person of his Minister of Justice, Dominique Perben, has announced his government’s intention to criminalize homophobic and sexist speech. Well, France will certainly be a quieter place the day after this law is passed. If not for the inviolable freedom to calumniate America, France might go dead quiet.

First in the docket for hate crimes? It’s Jack & co.:

The bill enters the process of ratification just after the centre-right government took steps to punish a mayor - the Green party politician Noel Mamere - who earlier this month performed France's first ever gay marriage ceremony.

That seems to fall within the law’s discrimination provision:

The bill, which will go before parliament next month, will make "incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence against a person on the basis of gender or sexual orientation" punishable by a year in prison and a EUR 45,000 (USD 54,000) fine. [Emphasis added.]

It puts sexist and homophobic remarks on the same criminal level as words encouraging racism or anti-Semitism.

Ah, but not all hate speech is equal and France’s feminists are now squabbling over insult primacy. Why they ask should "tarlouze" trump “salope” in criminal penalties? Why indeed.

At the weekly cabinet meeting, President Jacques Chirac said he hoped the law would "bring to an abrupt end these very serious acts," his spokesman said.

Oh yes, that should do it. Why, this 1990 law has made racism and anti-Semitism nonexistent in France.

The question to our French correspondents is this: How defective is French law that the dignity of the human person does not obtain for all classes of people without minorities seeking remedies in special legislation?

06.25.04 UPDATE: We note that in France hate speech is prosecuted and fined but not commercially enjoined. If you are willing to pay the state for your opinions then you are free to peddle them about.

Earlier this month, viz. infra, Mdm. Bardot was fined €5,000 for inciting racial hatred in her book, Un cri dans le silence, a sort of Dr. Doolittle meets Jean-Marie Le Pen worldview. Jack's new expanded hate speech law will have la BB back in the docket for referring to homosexuals as "phénomènes de foire" in her book. Apparently strong meat in France. Elsewhere la BB laments the many "filthy, badly dressed and badly shaven" people cluttering up France. No doubt, offended bums will now petition the state for redress.

The book remains available at Amazon.fr. Certainly this is odd. If the court has found that la BB's book incites racial hatred in some real and concrete way, shouldn't there be an injunction against its dissemination because of the dangers of its real and concrete powers? Or perhaps in truth la BB's book is factually flimsy and insulting but is not inciting anyone to anything. What France looks to want to prohibit is insulting speech, not some dark notion of hate speech. It is hard to determine which of the two is the greater folly.

A truly sad state of affairs.

Hate speech? Is it not reasonable to assume that a person could insult another person without harboring animosity? How can the court decide what lurks within a persons heart?

Exactly. What happened to disdain or amusement. Both of which, of course, I feel about the French.

get a life Krempasky...

A truly sad state of affairs.

With a record like this one, it's a little ironic.

Cannabis Culture Magazine? Is that a joke???
"Marijuana and hemp around the world". Now that's a program.

We want our readers to Overgrow the Government, and so each issue features ads for many marijuana seed merchants, including the spectacular ten-page catalog for Marc Emery Direct Marijuana Seeds, with amazing photos and tantalizing descriptions of over 400 strains available by international mail-order.

To put those seeds to good use, we always include accurate and easy to understand articles and advice to help you grow the world's best bud in your own home.

No doubt those people don't need Starbucks coffee to keep them awake to make up, er sorry, write their articles.

And here is the guy who wrote your article:

Dan Loehndorf [aka Reverend Damuzi] is a fully qualified reverend of the Church of the Universe, members of which believe that marijuana is the Tree of Life.

Every time I smoke the sacrament, says Dan Loehndorf, lifting a joint to his lips, I say a prayer to end the suffering caused by prohibition...

The drug war is an excuse to terrorize the poor and steal their lands for development by the multinational corporations that promote free trade, Damuzi explains...

Dan Loehndorf hosts the Church of the Universe Hour, which can be seen on Pot TV.

You can go watch Dan here, on Pot-TV.

No, seriously, your link, it was a joke? One must be seriously tripping to swallow that dope.

So just because the guy enjoys smoking a joint now and then, his basic facts must be based on hallucinations (good God, send him to JAIL!)?

No problem Carine, here's another one, at random.

Maybe instead of treating pot smokers like hard criminals, you should follow Autralia and Canada's examples (a combination of relative tolerance or fines, when applicable) and make much-needed prison space for real psychos which you never seem to have a shortage of.

Zoomerx, you must be referring to Emile Louis, n'est-ce pas?

Cops laugh at pot heads here in California. If you run into a real hard ass. Like if the guy just had his girlfiend break up with him, move out with all the furniture, and his dog. Then a cop under those special heightened circumstances might(just a sliver of a chance) might give you a ticket and tell you not to do it again.

But I wouldn't bet on it.

what ever happened to Dr Hemp?

HRRRMP a hem Not that I know anything about this topic from personal experience....

I listen to a lot of Rush Limbaugh. YA Thats it. thats my story

I never did it. You never saw me do it. And you can't prove a thing.

Zoomerx, you must be referring to Emile Louis, n'est-ce pas?

The case of Emile Louis is notorious because of the relative rarity of this kind of serial psychopaths compared to your endless supply of them. Let's be honest, you rule the industrialized world in that department (some even find it entertaining (and hopefully, profitable).

As Don King would say, "only in America"...

Zoomerx,

So just because the guy enjoys smoking a joint now and then

Now and then? NOW AND THEN?? The guy created a religion around cannabis!! He's talking about smoking a joint as "taking the sacrament"!

his basic facts must be based on hallucinations (good God, send him to JAIL!)?

One only has to read the first sentences to understand that there are no "basic facts" in his paper. In addition, his first reference being far-left, anti-American Le Monde Diplomatique, it's clear from the beginning there's not much to expect from the whole thing. Actually, with a smile on your face, you expect the words "evil corporations" to pop up. And here they are!
You've gotta learn to choose and check your sources. Just because it's purely anti-American or rewriting history to make America the evil empire it is not, doesn't mean it is true.

No problem Carine, here's another one, at random.

See? Here's the problem with your sources: "at random".

Besides I don't really see the point regarding Damian's post. Freedom of speech is being considerably curbed in France, that is a fact. Anti-Semitism is not being curbed at all though. On the contrary. In addition, we now regularly have Muslim graves being desecrated too. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. But here you are, closing your eyes on France's problems, changing topics, pointing the finger at the US, waving one or two articles from some far-left freaks, pretending to know everything there is to know about the US, visibly, partly thanks to some obscure pot worshipper.

Besides, as far as the subjects of your so-called articles are concerned, there would be much to say about France itself. But that is not the subject here.

I understand your attention span is short, but do you think you could try to concentrate on the subject (French so-called hate speech laws - you're welcome!)? I'd tend to think bad faith would get in the way anyway.

See? Here's the problem with your sources: "at random".

ok so basically you are denying that the US is the number one jailer in the world. Fine.

Anti-Semitism is not being curbed at all though. On the contrary.

I won't deny that but do you have a proof of your claim?

In addition, we now regularly have Muslim graves being desecrated too

Gee, I wonder why. A shame indeed.

pretending to know everything there is to know about the US, visibly, partly thanks to some obscure pot worshipper.

I love your sense of deduction.

The same could be said about Pave and many of its narrow-minded views, do you know what I mean? For your information, I've lived in the US and there is a lot I admire there, more than you think. I've never used the word "evil empire" to describe the US, I don't beleive in that. By the way, are you French? Have you lived there? It's far from perfect I know, but reading Pave, you could easily mistake it for some thirld world Banana Republic.

But here you are, closing your eyes on France's problems, changing topics, pointing the finger at the US, waving one or two articles from some far-left freaks, pretending to know everything there is to know about the US, visibly, partly thanks to some obscure pot worshipper.

No I'm not closing my eyes on it. What I like to do is find irony whenever I can. When some Americans here at Pave point out France's lack of "Freedom" and other horrible things, I point out the fact that they have the largest prison occupancy in the world (among many more social ills we all face). I think it's revealing, don't you? Why don't you explain instead of the classic Pave defence that every data you don't like is "far left" therefore, invalid?

I understand your attention span is short, but do you think you could try to concentrate on the subject (French so-called hate speech laws - you're welcome!)? I'd tend to think bad faith would get in the way anyway.

Fair enough. I think that fining Brigitte Bardot for expressing herself is absurd, un-democratic and narrow-minded (I honestly do). Maybe she deserves the same treatment as the "Dixie Chicks" for expressing themselves through boycotts, hate mail and death threats...

Check out this pot head Ron Anderton and his discription of how the Canadians do things.

"It's [weed's] taxation could go into government revenue and there'd be a cost savings by police not pursuing marijuana smokers," he said.

He estimates about $100 million a year could be saved that's now spent keeping people in Canadian jails for pot offences. Voters should decide if weed is another vice.

"We're over-governed and we have to give the power back to the individual."

Hey, you know, maximum security crminals can cost $50k+ per year to incarcerate - we could save a bundle if we just stopped locking them up. Why don't we just give them a teddy bear and tell them to try to do better next time? Man, we'd save millions! I'm brilliant.

BTW, a big hat tip to Carine - it's always nice to see her back in the saddle here at Pave.

But as Carine rightly points out, let's get back to the point...

It seems to me that B.B. (as she's often refered as) is not the only one suffering the consequences of we view decency and censorship, is she?

So what's the difference?

Hey zoomerx, why do you assume that I am an American? You may want to reconsider your guess.

OK, perharps I assumed wrongly. Hmmm... French ?

What France looks to want to prohibit is insulting speech, not some dark notion of hate speech.

I'm still waiting for Damian to explain to me what's the difference between the French government fining BB's book for "insulting speech" (fair criticism), and the FEDERAL Communication Commission doing essentially the same to what it sees as "unfit"?...

For starters, Stern is broadcast. Any automobile with a radio, any kid with a walkman, anyone anywhere can be passively subjected to his speech whether they want it or not. That's why standards of public decency apply to broadcast media, but not to cable or satellite (or at least, not the same standards). BB's book is the same as cable or satellite - you have to actively pursue, and even pay for to be exposed to it. It isn't as if it arrives unbidden on your doorstep.

It's kind of like buying and reading Mein Kampf, and then complaining that you had to read lunatic ramblings. Or maybe it's more like the difference between selling porn videos and projecting them onto the sides of buildings... hrm. I'll have to think about that. At any rate, caveat emptor doesn't apply unless you're an emptor, which Stern listeners aren't and Bardot readers are.

Doug,

What prevents you from switching the radio station dial? The bottom line is the same to me.

What prevents you from not reading Bardot's book? It's very easy to not read it - you simply don't buy it. It does't require any participation from you to avoid. Changing the channel does.

And that's the point - the freely broadcasted public airwaves should not require people to have to change the channel to find a common standard of decency. If someone wants to raise their children to certain standards, they should be able to do it by simply not buying cable or satellite (or selectively buying). They shouldn't have to accomplish this standard in their own home by getting rid of televisions and radios, or sitting on top of their kids 24/7.

For paid media, anything goes. You have absolute control over exposure to that - if you bought it, you asked for it. To avoid it, you simply have to do nothing at all.

I understand what you're saying but I'm not 100% convinced since both the written word and the "broadcasted" word both fall under the Freedom Of Expression, right? I would just deduct that we have different standards of what's acceptable and what's not, i.e. you can't say "shit" on US public television, on French TV it's not a big deal. Sure, the French government is getting a little jumpy these days with hate speech for obvious reasons, but overall, I think we both enjoy the same standards. There are many things on French TV you would not get away with (swearing, nudity), and vice-versa (in your case, written hate speech, Nazi references etc...).

btw, how does "Hate Crime Laws" function in the US? Do they cover certain threatening speech as well? BB's words can be seen as "threatening" as well by many...

Hate crime laws - to the extent that I know, which is hardly a full extent - are just bolstering existing laws. Or redundant, take your choice of phrasing. They take something that's already illegal, and make it "more illegal". There are two approaches - a broad approach that says hate crimes are any crime enacted based on a prejudice, and a somewhat narrower piecemeal approach that takes a crime-by-crime analysis. A common example used to justify hate laws is the existance of gay bashing (actual physical beating up, not just ragging on); but of course, beating people up is already illegal regardless of who they like to sleep with, so the hate law is pretty useless.

Well, useless unless you count the votes that pandering gets from a special interest block, or the state money that has to go into keeping statistics and studying useless trending. I say useless trending because these laws are abused, and the trending can't be accurate. Sticking with the gay bashing example; a person who's been attacked is unlikely to report "I was attacked because I was being an obnoxious asshole". Most people simply aren't that objective or honest, or they wouldn't be assholes. A straight person will give some other reason for being victimized, but a gay person has a handy excuse which grants them priveleged status as a bonus - "I was attacked because I'm gay". It becomes almost statistically impossible for a gay person to be attacked for any reason other than hate victimization. They could have given me millions to tell them that, but nooo...

As you've probably guessed, I don't have a high opinion of these laws. They require the court to examine the motives and intentions of the accused beyond what I consider a necessary and reasonable extent. You need to determine if whatever they did was justified, or if there was reasonably mitigating justification - and that's it. The court's job is to hand down justice for all, and there's no such thing as extra justice for some. If you beat someone, rob someone, spit in their face, vandalize their property - whatever - it doesn't matter if you did it because they're {fill in the blank} - it matters that you did it.

To answer your "threatening speech" question, that should differ on a state-by-state basis, but in states that have adopted hate laws I think you'll generally find that there has to be a direct and specific credible threat. "Death to accountants!" would probably not be direct or specific enough; "I'm going to gut you like a fish, you bean-counting bastard" while you're fingering a knife certainly is.

While some quotes of BB's that I've seen are at the least distasteful, and perhaps hateful, I don't think they'd be specificly or directly threatening. Do you think anyone can make a credible case that they honestly believe BB is going to come and do them harm? She looks like you could fend her off with bad breath (maybe even kill her). You could argue that the comments might incite people who were already predisposed to do harm, but I'm not sure if any states have a hate law to cover that. Well, now that I think about it, I imagine that there probably are at least a few, but I can't remember an instance I've heard of offhand.

Hmm... you know... I'm pretty sure Ted Kennedy has incited people predisposed to do harm...

And as long as I'm writing a long-ass rambling post, let me add that your argument has improved many times over in the last few weeks. You still run off on irrelevant tangents sometimes, but you generally stay much more focused than you used to.

Thanks for the info Doug.