I've seen nothing in the French press like the New York Post front page with weasels' heads transplanted onto the necks of the French and German UN delegates.
What's your excuse?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The New York Post is a tabloid as well, but that's irrelevant. There's a concept called freedom of the press that's fundamental to freedom.
I've claimed western continental europe to be a remanent of feudalism for a long time. . . the fact that there's no freedom of press doesn't help.
There are libel laws, but you can't form a realistic suit if all of the claims are true, or can't be proven incorrect.
No, Scott, fall foul of laws against the incitement of race hate and you may well end up in court. (These laws apply to anti-semitism, too, you'll no doubt be pleased to hear.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Such laws can always be abused to make people shut up. Such and ill defined law would be struck down in no time here in the states. But ... we respect individual freedom here even if we don't like what people say.
[quote]COPENHAGEN--I'm the author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," a work that grapples hard with our pessimistic view of the environment. It's a serious book on a serious subject. But it has now been denounced by the Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty--yes, such a body exists!--in a manner reminiscent of medieval book-burnings. And many environmentalists have cheered from the side, world-wide.
How did this happen and what are the consequences?
<strong>Here's another good example of a European goverment coming down on an author simply becaue they didn't like what he had to say.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
a) The french governement did not sue Houellebecq, it's some islam org who sued him
b) they lost. The court decided is that Houellebecq have the right to express his own views as an author.
[quote] The fact that the law exists is outrageous enough. <hr></blockquote>
it's an old law never employed, that's why nobody have the idear of removing her. Perhaps it would be a good idear.
[quote] There are libel laws, but you can't form a realistic suit if all of the claims are true, or can't be proven incorrect. <hr></blockquote>
Same apply in France too, if you cannot proove that what is in the book is wrong you cannot sue them. The only restriction is private life : for example if an article said that this star is a lesbian or whatever , she has the right to sue the newspaper. Private life laws never applied to politic or busisness who is a public thing.
They are plenty of books giving hard time to politicians in France.
Like every journalist in the world, french journalist are very aware of the respect of their rights. In practice the only difference with US concerning freedoom, is the private life. As i hate this kind of press (i really don't care who **** princess Stephanie), these laws don't bother me.
Oh lord did you pick the worst example of all for your case <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Lomborg is the puppet of our Government. They hired him to lead a enviromental institute that IMHO was crated to justify its policy. The Committee for Scientific Dishonesty is a body consisting of scientists that say "in our opinion this is dishonest" if they feel so based on their judgement. All in the best tradition of scientific research (open for critisism and all that jazz).
Now I don´t agree fully with the committee mostly because I think their case against Lomborg is thin. But they put forward their documentation and based on that the committee is now critisized itself on the same grounds as Lomborg. Again in the best of all traditions.
The committee has NO POWER OVER LOMBORG AT ALL and if anything the government is holding its hand over him.
Try again
BTW: I disagree with Lomborg, but in another way than the committee. He is a statistcian and he base his research on pure cost benefit analysis and he has got no insight into meterology, biology or anything else in the natural sciences. He takes natural scienctist results at face value and apply his cost benefit analysis on them. Two problems:
1: He has a tendency to use those scientists that is good for his case over others. One example: He "showed" the benefits of beer cans over bottles with the argument that cans can be burned without problems in our normal garbage system. EVERYBODY that have any knowledge about the subject know cans are a huge problem for the garbage ovens.
2: He doesn´t take into account other problems. Like one argument against doing something about the green house effect: Its cheaper to build barieres against rising water than doing something about the pollution. The problem being that the ares most affected by rising water are some of the most populated areas and the poorest. He did not have anything to say about how you transfer funds from those having an advantage of doing nothing (us) to those who it would be devastating for. In other words he doesn´t take into account the sociological, political and cultural effects of his proposals. Not a problem for a scientist but now he is a leading figure in our enviromental policy and then it becomes a porblem.
[quote]That these people, angry by France's position on the Iraqi crisis, slander, get delirious, or do whatever nonsense, is what they usually do, That they distribute their rag in our place, is also their right for in a democracy like ours freedom of expression is sacred.<hr></blockquote>
Now, there are countless excellent reasons to criticise France, Â?feudal lack of freedom of the pressÂ? or any other ignorant nonesense isn't one of them.
I suppose any lawsuit against The Sun on the ground of some obsolete law someone forgot to erase, isn't likely to go through since it's probably invalid due to some more recent European charter on human rights or whatever they have there.
Now, in many countries' lawbooks you'll find stupid outadated laws often contradicting some most basic personal liberties.
Even if you're from the world's most advanced regime (whichever that is), yours has some too.
It doesn't matter if the law is outdated or not. Just the fact that it is there and it was suggested that it could be used against The Sun has a chilling effect on free speech in France.
Reminds me of that case where the wine publication called some wine producers product sewer water (or something like that). The opinion cost the publisher big time and last I read they may have to close down.
So ... if you publish in France ... and you have a strong opinion on any subject ... shut up or else! You've been warned.
<strong>It doesn't matter if the law is outdated or not. Just the fact that it is there and it was suggested that it could be used against The Sun has a chilling effect on free speech in France.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The fact is that many idiotic laws are there and elesewhere, including in your country, and suggestions that they could be used means very little, but blow this whole matter out of proportions in the context of an unusual international political crisis between France and the UK.
It's also a fact that criticisms and insults are and were leveled against French presidents for years, and that's normal.
[quote]<strong>So ... if you publish in France ... and you have a strong opinion on any subject ... shut up or else! You've been warned.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That may be your impression, but it's not an accurate description of reality, as any casual reader of French publications would know.
And contrary to another misconception mentioned in this thread, the Washington Post isn't part of Murdoch's empire, yet.
But I seem to recall the South China Morning Post is.
[ 02-22-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
Nobody seems to be responding to the points in my post that the French press "can't' report what they know to be true about their politicians because of the privacy laws. I bet Clinton wishes he was the French president because none of his business or sexual dealings would have been reported. The Sun is a rag and xenophobic to boot.
But then, no one reported Kennedy's bedside adventures back in the 60s, and that still didn't make the USA of the time a country lacking freedom of the press.
I think French press needs to seriously question its comfy relationship with the high echelons of power (which is kind of a gentlemen's agreement rather than some actual government control), as well as its excessive dependence on the AFP newswires. And the AFP should definitely be privatised, yesterday.
Comments
<strong>
I've seen nothing in the French press like the New York Post front page with weasels' heads transplanted onto the necks of the French and German UN delegates.
What's your excuse?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The New York Post is a tabloid as well, but that's irrelevant. There's a concept called freedom of the press that's fundamental to freedom.
I've claimed western continental europe to be a remanent of feudalism for a long time. . . the fact that there's no freedom of press doesn't help.
There are libel laws, but you can't form a realistic suit if all of the claims are true, or can't be proven incorrect.
<strong>
No, Scott, fall foul of laws against the incitement of race hate and you may well end up in court. (These laws apply to anti-semitism, too, you'll no doubt be pleased to hear.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Such laws can always be abused to make people shut up. Such and ill defined law would be struck down in no time here in the states. But ... we respect individual freedom here even if we don't like what people say.
<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002949"; target="_blank">Smearing a Skeptic
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. </a>
BY BJORN LOMBORG
[quote]COPENHAGEN--I'm the author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," a work that grapples hard with our pessimistic view of the environment. It's a serious book on a serious subject. But it has now been denounced by the Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty--yes, such a body exists!--in a manner reminiscent of medieval book-burnings. And many environmentalists have cheered from the side, world-wide.
How did this happen and what are the consequences?
...<hr></blockquote>
<strong>"Mike-ul Whole-uh-beck-ul"
Is it seriously just "Hweebeck"??
What is up with the "l"s and "q"s and shit? Crazy-ass language!
[ 02-21-2003: Message edited by: groverat ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
U well beck
or simply well beck. For the I same pronounciation as e. Michel think mum(my shell).
Q is like c.
The most difficult for an english to pronounce is the U (no equivalence in prononciation here).
<strong>Here's another good example of a European goverment coming down on an author simply becaue they didn't like what he had to say.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
a) The french governement did not sue Houellebecq, it's some islam org who sued him
b) they lost. The court decided is that Houellebecq have the right to express his own views as an author.
[quote] The fact that the law exists is outrageous enough. <hr></blockquote>
it's an old law never employed, that's why nobody have the idear of removing her. Perhaps it would be a good idear.
[quote] There are libel laws, but you can't form a realistic suit if all of the claims are true, or can't be proven incorrect. <hr></blockquote>
Same apply in France too, if you cannot proove that what is in the book is wrong you cannot sue them. The only restriction is private life : for example if an article said that this star is a lesbian or whatever , she has the right to sue the newspaper. Private life laws never applied to politic or busisness who is a public thing.
They are plenty of books giving hard time to politicians in France.
Like every journalist in the world, french journalist are very aware of the respect of their rights. In practice the only difference with US concerning freedoom, is the private life. As i hate this kind of press (i really don't care who **** princess Stephanie), these laws don't bother me.
That's right, "Fan-shaw."
All those g's and h's and silent letters. Crazy-ass language, that English.
[ 02-22-2003: Message edited by: Harald ]</p>
<strong>Here's another good example of a European goverment coming down on an author simply becaue they didn't like what he had to say.
<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002949"; target="_blank">Smearing a Skeptic
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. </a>
BY BJORN LOMBORG
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh lord did you pick the worst example of all for your case <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Lomborg is the puppet of our Government. They hired him to lead a enviromental institute that IMHO was crated to justify its policy. The Committee for Scientific Dishonesty is a body consisting of scientists that say "in our opinion this is dishonest" if they feel so based on their judgement. All in the best tradition of scientific research (open for critisism and all that jazz).
Now I don´t agree fully with the committee mostly because I think their case against Lomborg is thin. But they put forward their documentation and based on that the committee is now critisized itself on the same grounds as Lomborg. Again in the best of all traditions.
The committee has NO POWER OVER LOMBORG AT ALL and if anything the government is holding its hand over him.
Try again
BTW: I disagree with Lomborg, but in another way than the committee. He is a statistcian and he base his research on pure cost benefit analysis and he has got no insight into meterology, biology or anything else in the natural sciences. He takes natural scienctist results at face value and apply his cost benefit analysis on them. Two problems:
1: He has a tendency to use those scientists that is good for his case over others. One example: He "showed" the benefits of beer cans over bottles with the argument that cans can be burned without problems in our normal garbage system. EVERYBODY that have any knowledge about the subject know cans are a huge problem for the garbage ovens.
2: He doesn´t take into account other problems. Like one argument against doing something about the green house effect: Its cheaper to build barieres against rising water than doing something about the pollution. The problem being that the ares most affected by rising water are some of the most populated areas and the poorest. He did not have anything to say about how you transfer funds from those having an advantage of doing nothing (us) to those who it would be devastating for. In other words he doesn´t take into account the sociological, political and cultural effects of his proposals. Not a problem for a scientist but now he is a leading figure in our enviromental policy and then it becomes a porblem.
[quote]Que ces gens lÃ* énervés par la position de la France dans la crise irakienne, diffament, délirent, ou fassent n'importe quoi, c'est leur habitude. Qu'ils distribuent leur torchon chez nous, c'est aussi leur droit puisque dans une démocratie comme la nôtre la liberté d'expression est sacrée<hr></blockquote>
Translation:
[quote]That these people, angry by France's position on the Iraqi crisis, slander, get delirious, or do whatever nonsense, is what they usually do, That they distribute their rag in our place, is also their right for in a democracy like ours freedom of expression is sacred.<hr></blockquote>
Now, there are countless excellent reasons to criticise France, Â?feudal lack of freedom of the pressÂ? or any other ignorant nonesense isn't one of them.
I suppose any lawsuit against The Sun on the ground of some obsolete law someone forgot to erase, isn't likely to go through since it's probably invalid due to some more recent European charter on human rights or whatever they have there.
Now, in many countries' lawbooks you'll find stupid outadated laws often contradicting some most basic personal liberties.
Even if you're from the world's most advanced regime (whichever that is), yours has some too.
Reminds me of that case where the wine publication called some wine producers product sewer water (or something like that). The opinion cost the publisher big time and last I read they may have to close down.
So ... if you publish in France ... and you have a strong opinion on any subject ... shut up or else! You've been warned.
[ 02-22-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
<strong>It doesn't matter if the law is outdated or not. Just the fact that it is there and it was suggested that it could be used against The Sun has a chilling effect on free speech in France.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The fact is that many idiotic laws are there and elesewhere, including in your country, and suggestions that they could be used means very little, but blow this whole matter out of proportions in the context of an unusual international political crisis between France and the UK.
It's also a fact that criticisms and insults are and were leveled against French presidents for years, and that's normal.
[quote]<strong>So ... if you publish in France ... and you have a strong opinion on any subject ... shut up or else! You've been warned.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That may be your impression, but it's not an accurate description of reality, as any casual reader of French publications would know.
And contrary to another misconception mentioned in this thread, the Washington Post isn't part of Murdoch's empire, yet.
But I seem to recall the South China Morning Post is.
[ 02-22-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
But then, no one reported Kennedy's bedside adventures back in the 60s, and that still didn't make the USA of the time a country lacking freedom of the press.
I think French press needs to seriously question its comfy relationship with the high echelons of power (which is kind of a gentlemen's agreement rather than some actual government control), as well as its excessive dependence on the AFP newswires. And the AFP should definitely be privatised, yesterday.
Autonomous public service broadcating with controls keeping in check government interference, like France Télévision, the BBC, or RAI, is acceptable; a government-mouthpiece news agency like the AFP, is not.