France Stifles Freedom of Expression?

[Mephisto]

Is this the way to cut back on the aggressive youth fad of filming violent confrontations (that they usually instigate)? I would think that the laws against assault (assuming they have those in France) would be enough, but apparently this law will cover anyone filming a confrontation of any type.

Does anyone believe this is a worthwhile law?

'Happy slap' crackdown sparks row

POSTED: 7:40 a.m. EST, March 8, 2007

PARIS, France (AP) -- A new law in France makes it a crime -- punishable by up to five years in prison -- for anyone who is not a professional journalist to film real-world violence and distribute the images on the Internet.

Critics call it a clumsy, near-totalitarian effort by authorities to battle "happy slapping" -- the youth fad of filming violent acts -- which most often they have provoked themselves -- and spreading the images on the Web or between mobile phones.

The measure, tucked deep into a vast anti-crime law that took effect Wednesday, took media advocates by surprise with what they say is an undesirable side effect: trampling on freedom of expression.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/03/08/france.violence.ap/index.html
___________

This is a bit scary too . . .

"The sections of this law supposedly dealing with 'happy slapping' in fact have a much broader scope," Reporters Without Borders said in a statement. "Posting videos online showing violence against people could now be banned, even if it were the police carrying out the violence."

 

[fuelair]

Is this the way to cut back on the aggressive youth fad of filming violent confrontations (that they usually instigate)? I would think that the laws against assault (assuming they have those in France) would be enough, but apparently this law will cover anyone filming a confrontation of any type.

Does anyone believe this is a worthwhile law?

'Happy slap' crackdown sparks row

POSTED: 7:40 a.m. EST, March 8, 2007

PARIS, France (AP) -- A new law in France makes it a crime -- punishable by up to five years in prison -- for anyone who is not a professional journalist to film real-world violence and distribute the images on the Internet.

Critics call it a clumsy, near-totalitarian effort by authorities to battle "happy slapping" -- the youth fad of filming violent acts -- which most often they have provoked themselves -- and spreading the images on the Web or between mobile phones.

The measure, tucked deep into a vast anti-crime law that took effect Wednesday, took media advocates by surprise with what they say is an undesirable side effect: trampling on freedom of expression.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/03/08/france.violence.ap/index.html
___________

This is a bit scary too . . .

"The sections of this law supposedly dealing with 'happy slapping' in fact have a much broader scope," Reporters Without Borders said in a statement. "Posting videos online showing violence against people could now be banned, even if it were the police carrying out the violence."

I do not care for the law if it is to get the "happy slappers" either. I want a law that allows them to be shot down where they stand.

 

[Flo]

Is this the way to cut back on the aggressive youth fad of filming violent confrontations (that they usually instigate)? I would think that the laws against assault (assuming they have those in France) would be enough, but apparently this law will cover anyone filming a confrontation of any type.

Does anyone believe this is a worthwhile law?

Certainly not. As you noted, the laws against assault and lack of assistance to an endangered person should be sufficient to fight this fad. For example, in a recent case involving beating a teacher, the attacker was sentenced to prison for assault and the film maker for aiding and abetting, failing to report a crime, and lack of assistance.

However, you must remember that we're in the middle of an electoral year, and that one of the prime candidate (Sarkozy) is also minister in charge of security, which explains that kind of measures in reaction to said case, which comes at just the right moment for him ...

This is a bit scary too . . .

"The sections of this law supposedly dealing with 'happy slapping' in fact have a much broader scope," Reporters Without Borders said in a statement. "Posting videos online showing violence against people could now be banned, even if it were the police carrying out the violence."

Again, this aspect is a real concern, since the candidate/interior minister has shown a clear predilection for covering almost all and any police actions and dismissing criticisms, as could be seen last year, when he supported the now clearly discredited police version of the events that led to the riots ... His game is clearly to play the insecurity game in order to gather some of the national front electorate.

 

[Mephisto]

I do not care for the law if it is to get the "happy slappers" either. I want a law that allows them to be shot down where they stand.

Heheh, let them show THAT video over and over to their friends.

 

[gtc]

Again, this aspect is a real concern, since the candidate/interior minister has shown a clear predilection for covering almost all and any police actions and dismissing criticisms, as could be seen last year, when he supported the now clearly discredited police version of the events that led to the riots ... His game is clearly to play the insecurity game in order to gather some of the national front electorate.

Do you have a link to what really happened before the riots?

 

[steverino]

This is confusing. If I videotape a cop who is across the street, and is respectful while making an arrest, and I later read in the paper that the guy who was arrested is suing for police brutality, then doesn't my record of the event help law enforcement?

 

[Art Vandelay]

"Progessional" journalists? What does that mean? If you post the videos and get paid for it, does that make you a professional?

Certainly not. As you noted, the laws against assault and lack of assistance to an endangered person should be sufficient to fight this fad. For example, in a recent case involving beating a teacher, the attacker was sentenced to prison for assault and the film maker for aiding and abetting, failing to report a crime, and lack of assistance.

Does no one else think that THOSE laws are a violation of rights?

 

[kittynh]

hey this is FRANCE! They legislate language, music, all sorts of things.

Sadly, I will say the only thing I really do not enjoy while in Paris are the gangs of kids. Just running loose in packs, looking for trouble. Same with Brussels. The gangs of kids made it impossible to enjoy New Year, as the downtown fireworks and festivities have been taken over by groups of males that are frankly just plain old bored. The police ofcourse reacted by bringing in tear gas, and dogs...lots of dogs.

Basically, these kids seem to be...bored. Bored stiff. Nothing to do, not very well liked (they are mostly foreign immigrant children), not in school, no jobs, no future. So they harrass toursits in parks, mug a few people, every once in awhile a lone tourist is thrown into the Sienne (I was told to RUN like mad if I saw a group coming at me when I was out for my early morning photography sessions), I mean why should they care as no one cares about them.

For Brussels and Paris they are dealing with their open minded policy of letting in a lot of immigrants and then not knowing quite what to do with them when they refuse to assimilate. Or when they are not accepted (it all depends on whom you are talking to!). My very favorite cafe owner in Paris, a Muslim immigrant says it's because the French don't want his kids competing for scarce jobs. My French friends say it is because their religion keeps them from being able to work with women as equals (say having a woman teacher at university) and becoming French rather than say Moroccan (or where ever they are from).

Bored kids that feel no one care are going to find trouble.

 

[steverino]

(I was told to RUN like mad if I saw a group coming at me when I was out for my early morning photography sessions)

Are you saying you are a photographer? If you photographed these kids assaulting you, rather than fleeing, then it sounds like now you could end up in prison.

 

[steverino]

"Progessional" journalists? What does that mean?

Indeed. Aren't you the one who corrected my spelling last week?

 

[Flo]

Do you have a link to what really happened before the riots?

You'll have to look at the archives in the French press (Liberation, Le Monde, Le Figaro ...) and this report .

My point in this thread is that Sarkozy, prior to the riots, went to some suburbs where he shot his mouth in front of people who are (see the report) underprivilegied in lots of way, calling the whole local population "racaille" (scum), then when police officers chased 3 kids, 2 who died, into a electrical transformer for no reason at all other than "running in front of the police", he immediately announced they were guilty of theft and he also sided with the police version of "no chase" before any inquiry. The inquiry concluded that the 3 youths were innocent of any wrongdoing, that the officers chasing them had no reason to do so, that they knew they were hiding in a very dangerous place, that they were late in calling the electrical company and emergency services.

Thus the fears about any law potentially silencing any criticism of the police.

 

[Flo]

"Does no one else think that THOSE laws are a violation of rights?

How is a law against assault, encouraging assault, and not at least calling for help* for a victim of assault, violating rights ?

* note that the law about "lack of assistance" doesn't require you to take direct action, outside of calling for help.

 

[Flo]

This is confusing. If I videotape a cop who is across the street, and is respectful while making an arrest, and I later read in the paper that the guy who was arrested is suing for police brutality, then doesn't my record of the event help law enforcement?

Of course, which is one more reason why this particular law will certainly never be enforced ...

 

[Darat]

Sounds like a very badly worded piece of legislation.

Out of curiosity Flo since I've no idea at all - will this be scrutinised by anyone or any group that can change the wording before it is passed into law?

 

[Flo]

Sounds like a very badly worded piece of legislation.

Out of curiosity Flo since I've no idea at all - will this be scrutinised by anyone or any group that can change the wording before it is passed into law?

It should be scrutinised by the parliament and the senate, but I'm afraid it may be passed as is due the favourable circumstances (the case I refer to above), the current government holding the majority in both chambers, and the general public not seing the potential implications of such a law.

 

[Mephisto]

It should be scrutinised by the parliament and the senate, but I'm afraid it may be passed as is due the favourable circumstances (the case I refer to above), the current government holding the majority in both chambers, and the general public not seing the potential implications of such a law.

. . . and as you said before, this is an election year.

Thanks for the input.

 

[Merko]

I do not care for the law if it is to get the "happy slappers" either. I want a law that allows them to be shot down where they stand.

I want a law that allows flamethrowing people who shoot down happy slappers.

 

[Art Vandelay]

How is a law against assault, encouraging assault, and not at least calling for help* for a victim of assault, violating rights ?

* note that the law about "lack of assistance" doesn't require you to take direct action, outside of calling for help.

Only the last one violates rights. Not calling for help may be scummy, but people have a right to be scum.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Amazing how things reported in the press often are not the way they seem when actual facts are brought to the table.

Perhaps there is a lesson to learn here? Perhaps this lesson should be second nature to people who feel they are "skeptics"?

 

[Art Vandelay]

A bit hypocritical from someone who insists on making pronouncements regarding the US political system, yet refuses to discuss whether he has any basis for his pronouncements other than what's reported in the press, isn't it?