They have freedom of the press, but no freedom of speech they way it is guaranteed through the US constitution. in fact they have laws against hate speech and antisemitism.
Interesting, it would seem one can support a Palestinian state and oppose retaliation against innocent Palestinian civilians for the actions of an extremist group without being engaged in hate speech or antisemitism, however much the west really struggles with this concept.
If that’s their justification then did they forget what democracy is about? It’s quite literally the opposite of having the government determine the people’s stance.
Because it’s a stick to beat Muslim citizens with. It’s what all conservative French governments have been doing for the last 15 years, more or less openly depending on Le Pen’s (father or daughter) polling numbers. Darmanin is about as anti-Muslim pro-police-state as they come.
“Freedom of speech” as it’s known in the US is slightly misnamed. It’s more accurately “freedom from government regulation of speech”, and the EU doesn’t really have the same protections.
Most European countries do have free speech protections, but with much more limitations than in the US. (IIRC the US would also not allow e.g. speech calling for a lynch mob, as long as it’s specific enough.)
Various forms of hate speech, including support for terrorist organizations, are covered by those. Terrorist usually isn’t just what the government dislikes; it usually requires (or is subject to review by) a court decision.
There are obvious arguments against such rules, but there are very few social benefits to letting people support literal child murdering terrorists, call for the lynching of certain groups of people, claim that the Holocaust never happened and should be repeated (sic), or just march up and down the street in Nazi uniforms showing off their right arms much to the dismay of any survivors, their descendants, and the people who would be next on the list.
The main risk is the government abusing its power to ban all anti-government protests. Europe has decided that this risk is small enough with all checks and balances in place to be worth the social benefit. The US has decided otherwise.
Does France have free speech protections? Seems like this would be unconstitutional in the US, but not sure what laws exist there.
They have freedom of the press, but no freedom of speech they way it is guaranteed through the US constitution. in fact they have laws against hate speech and antisemitism.
Interesting, it would seem one can support a Palestinian state and oppose retaliation against innocent Palestinian civilians for the actions of an extremist group without being engaged in hate speech or antisemitism, however much the west really struggles with this concept.
They know which side they stand on and they want all their citizens to align to it.
If that’s their justification then did they forget what democracy is about? It’s quite literally the opposite of having the government determine the people’s stance.
They’re democratic, just not particularly pluralistic. Everybody’s gotta be culturally French, very tyranny of the majority types.
Because it’s a stick to beat Muslim citizens with. It’s what all conservative French governments have been doing for the last 15 years, more or less openly depending on Le Pen’s (father or daughter) polling numbers. Darmanin is about as anti-Muslim pro-police-state as they come.
“Freedom of speech” as it’s known in the US is slightly misnamed. It’s more accurately “freedom from government regulation of speech”, and the EU doesn’t really have the same protections.
deleted by creator
They have a lot of things that can be set on fire. That’s a form of free speech protection.
More importantly, they have a police force that won’t massacre protesters.
Most European countries do have free speech protections, but with much more limitations than in the US. (IIRC the US would also not allow e.g. speech calling for a lynch mob, as long as it’s specific enough.)
Various forms of hate speech, including support for terrorist organizations, are covered by those. Terrorist usually isn’t just what the government dislikes; it usually requires (or is subject to review by) a court decision.
There are obvious arguments against such rules, but there are very few social benefits to letting people support literal child murdering terrorists, call for the lynching of certain groups of people, claim that the Holocaust never happened and should be repeated (sic), or just march up and down the street in Nazi uniforms showing off their right arms much to the dismay of any survivors, their descendants, and the people who would be next on the list.
The main risk is the government abusing its power to ban all anti-government protests. Europe has decided that this risk is small enough with all checks and balances in place to be worth the social benefit. The US has decided otherwise.