I fucking called it that once "hate speech" laws became an accepted thing something like this would be bound to fallow.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46822409/ns/technology_and_science-security/#.T2yikPm2XG9

For those who can't be arsed to read the whole thing, Sarkozy (the president of France) has proposed a new law that would make it illegal for people to visit "extremnist" websites. That includes websites that are responsible for things such as hate speech. He even goes as far as saying that people who do so regurarly should be thrown into jail.

That's right, he wants to make it a criminal offence to simply visit a website that the government considers to be bad. Besides the stupitidy of making it illegal to just read or listen to something, there is also the matter of just how exactly Sarkozy intends to know what his people are reading on the internet. Is he going to create some kind of a system where the state always knows what his people are doing on the internet? How else could the state know if people are browsing through "extremnist" websites or not?

Still loving the so called fight against hate speech?

Discuss.

all i can see this doing is creating farther contention between people of different ethnicities and races. but im sure some members on here will say this is a good thing and try to prove it will remove racism.

I don't get where you get "racist" websites from. (I assume you mean websites that are home to many controversial opinions, but generally isn't actively dangerous or harboring criminal activities). It seems they are referring more to extremist muslim websites in the article. The kind that may have more than one uncomfortable connection to a terrorist organisation, and the means of contacting them for young "aspirants".

Just visiting I think would be a stupid ass thing to make illegal. But I could see, not necesarrily punishing but contacting and try to "fix" esepcially younger people active on such websites.

That is of course, assuming they are talking about websites promoting violent activism. Not just controversial websites.

I'd be disappointed in Sarkozy, but that would imply I didn't already hold him in burning contempt.

"Sarkozy argued that it was time to treat those who browse extremist websites the same way as those who consume child pornography."

Given how much moral panic and media hysteria surrounds the latter, that statement really doesn't fill me with confidence.

Don't get me wrong, both should be heavily punished in some fashion, but pointing to how child pornography is dealt with as some kind of exemplar way of dealing with a serious problem isn't helpful.

Why should browsing an extremist website be punished? Next I'll be being punished for studying Nazism or Communism, or by reading Nietzsche, or because I viewed Birth of a Nation in Film class. People have the right to information.

Elcarsh:

Oirish_Martin:
Don't get me wrong, both should be heavily punished in some fashion, but pointing to how child pornography is dealt with as some kind of exemplar way of dealing with a serious problem isn't helpful.

So you really think it should be punishable to simply visit a website with questionable content? Seriously?

.....no?

How are you getting that from my post? I'm saying that the comparison to deal with this in the same way as child porn is a bad one. Because child porn on the whole was dealt with in an entirely reactionary, pearl-clutching way, that drove the real shitbags underground and demonised possible preventative measures.

Funny how increases in national security invariably end up reducing individual rights to choice and privacy. How depressingly inevitable.

PrinceOfShapeir:
I'd be disappointed in Sarkozy, but that would imply I didn't already hold him in burning contempt.

Yeah. Ever since they banned the Burqua. I mean seriously, did they think they could do that and everything would be fine, that Muslims would just forget about it? (Not, I hasten to add, that I sympathise in any way with the psychopath that killed those people)

Elcarsh:

Oirish_Martin:
.....no?

How are you getting that from my post? I'm saying that the comparison to deal with this in the same way as child porn is a bad one. Because child porn on the whole was dealt with in an entirely reactionary, pearl-clutching way, that drove the real shitbags underground and demonised possible preventative measures.

You did say "Don't get me wrong, both should be heavily punished in some fashion". Seeing as how there were only two things you referred to in your post; child pornography and browsing such websites, it was only a reasonable conclusion to draw that, when you said "both", you were referring to both of the things you mentioned.

That was more to avoid any possibility of SO YOU THINK CHILD PORN AND TERRORISM ARE OK HMM HMM from posters in general, but fair enough.

Hardcore_gamer:
I fucking called it that once "hate speech" laws became an accepted thing something like this would be bound to fallow.

The whole news 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

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46822409/ns/technology_and_science-security/#.T2yikPm2XG9

For those who can't be arsed to read the whole thing, Sarkozy (the president of France) has proposed a new law that would make it illegal for people to visit "extremnist" websites. That includes websites that are responsible for things such as hate speech. He even goes as far as saying that people who do so regurarly should be thrown into jail.

That's right, he wants to make it a criminal offence to simply visit a website that the government considers to be bad. Besides the stupitidy of making it illegal to just read or listen to something, there is also the matter of just how exactly Sarkozy intends to know what his people are reading on the internet. Is he going to create some kind of a system where the state always knows what his people are doing on the internet? How else could the state know if people are browsing through "extremnist" websites or not?

Still loving the so called fight against hate speech?

Discuss.

You know, I realize that some of us Americans might come off as over dramtic and paranoid whenever we see things like how the UK deals with hate speech or how the French outlaw denial of the holocaust, but its things like this that make us think "it's 1984". Seriously what the hell? What exactly constitutes as extreme? If I go on a website that advocates that Quebec should be its own country or that Scotland should become its own country, will that count as extreme? Nothing good can come from this law.

I ask myself why anyone would do this. Then I remember Edward Hitler's answer:

''BECAUSE THEY'RE FRENCH!''

Goodbye France's standing in those Democracy, Freedom etc. indexes.

This will probably be a case where one nations left and right wings both team up against freedom of speech.

No. Just wrong. Free speech is free speech.

And what if someone accidentally navigates to the site?

Or even worse, what if the computer gets a virus or hacker attempt by some douchebag who makes the computer go to those sites? Seems like a really good way to get someone you don't like arrested...

Stupid law is stupid. France, shoot this thing down.

Hardcore_gamer:
I fucking called it that once "hate speech" laws became an accepted thing something like this would be bound to fallow.

While I recognize you point (and it's a very good one), I have to say that there are very good arguments for laws against hate speech. Also, slippery slope arguments are terrible the vast majority of the time.

Uhhhh...

So many problems with this.

1. It is a direct attack on freedom speech.

2. Punishes those that click on the wrong link or those who get sent to these sites by trolls.

3. It will require a constant viewing of the activities of everybody online in France, both hugely expensive and to close to Big Brother for comfort.

4. If it want's to avoid appearing racist against muslim's, the law will have to be changed to include any "extremist" sites.

renegade7:
And what if someone accidentally navigates to the site?

Or even worse, what if the computer gets a virus or hacker attempt by some douchebag who makes the computer go to those sites? Seems like a really good way to get someone you don't like arrested...

The very same argument could be made about illegal pornography, no?

Seanchaidh:

renegade7:
And what if someone accidentally navigates to the site?

Or even worse, what if the computer gets a virus or hacker attempt by some douchebag who makes the computer go to those sites? Seems like a really good way to get someone you don't like arrested...

The very same argument could be made about illegal pornography, no?

Exactly. Viewing shouldn't be a crime in and of itself for that very reason. Only production should be illegal, or if the illegal material is found on the computer of a convicted pedophile it could be used as evidence.

You know what's better than censoring racists, bigots, and extremists? Convincing them they're wrong. It's a lot harder, for sure, but it's certainly more effective than simply driving such forces underground.

Good. Hate speech should be outlawed. It's sickening, and so are websites like Stormfront.

renegade7:
And what if someone accidentally navigates to the site?

Or even worse, what if the computer gets a virus or hacker attempt by some douchebag who makes the computer go to those sites? Seems like a really good way to get someone you don't like arrested...

Well, he did specify people who "regularly" visit extremist sites. And, it'd depend very much on the definition of "extremist sites", which is yet unspecified.

So what's the next step? Making it illegal for people to listen to certain bands due to their lyrical content? This kind of shit is fucking stupid and is getting out of hand.

TheDarkEricDraven:
Good. Hate speech should be outlawed. It's sickening, and so are websites like Stormfront.

-

So, if I put a link here and told you it was to a funny video, and you clicked on it, and it turned out it was a racist website, you think you should be thrown in jail, right? After all, you just "visited a racist website".

Yosarian2:

TheDarkEricDraven:
Good. Hate speech should be outlawed. It's sickening, and so are websites like Stormfront.

-

So, if I put a link here and told you it was to a funny video, and you clicked on it, and it turned out it was a racist website, you think you should be thrown in jail, right? After all, you just "visited a racist website".

If TheDarkEricDraven fell for that over and over again to fit the definition of "regularly", you mean. Which would be sorta funny.

Welcome to an all new episode of Team France: Thought Police, in which the state is censoring what opinions/arguments you're allowed to seek out yourself!

This is yet another reason why hatespeech laws need to go; they are inevitably the first step towards state censorship of any ideology or subject that is deemed undesireable. France are the first (at least in the civilized world) to take it to the next level, but they won't be the last.

Also, the privacy policies needed to actually facilitate any sort of enforcement of this would be utterly totalitarian in nature. So it'll either be a useless and pathetic piece of shit legislation, or the onset of a police state.

It's another one of those things where even if I don't personally agree with the [extremists] point of view, I feel that making it illegal outright to even visit an extremist webpage does set a very disconcerting precedent.

Blablahb:
People take this stuff way too seriously. All this will do is give intelligence services and the police a way to act against emerging extremists like Merah

How? Not everyone who reads something automatically decides to become a terrorist. Not to mention that Merah wasn't arrested for reading something, he was arrested for an act of terrorism. The law that Sarkozy was talking about would make it illegal to simply browse a site that has hateful content. Then there is also a matter of deciding what counts as extemist content. What makes somebody an extremist is fairly subjective.

Blablahb:
instead of having to wait untill he commits a murder

So what are people going to be charged with instead then? For reading information that might or might not have made them do something in case they had later decided to which they may or may not have done?

Blablahb:
because the entire radicalisation process leading up to that act is all legal.

And how is browsing a site with hateful content a "radicalisation process"? How does simply reading autmatically mean you will commit crimes in the future?

Blablahb:
It's never going to be that people get punished for surfing to a website.

Did you even read the article? That is exactly what he is suggesting.

Blablahb:
Heck, gathering information about that can only be done when someone's computer is seized on court order because other ways of logging surfing behaviour are illegal or not elligible as evidence.

For now, but the article does point out the implications of making it illegal to simply visit a website:

article:
"What's especially worrying for us is how you are going to know who's looking at what site. Does this announcement mean the installation of a global Internet surveillance system in France?"

For crying out loud, it's election time people.
Sarkozy just wants to get votes by playing on peoples' feeling of insecurity after a muslim extremist Merah shot some soldiers and jews in France. Trying to take votes away from the more right-wing French parties to beat the socialist candidate Hollande.

It's easy to judge this while sitting safely at your computer in Denmark or wherever. Imagine a large, alienated and radicalising muslim population living in and around YOUR capitol.

Guess what some people choose when confronted with the choice between safety and the freedom to visit muslim extremist websites promoting murder of jews, declaring shariah in your country,... (Tip: it's not the latter)