Freedom of speech issues in France ?? I'd say a good reason not to come here is bureaucracy and taxes, but not issues with freedom of speech... Do you have some facts you'd like to share ?
For example, "expressing support for acts of terror" is an imprisonable offense, and it has been interpreted incredibly broadly by the courts, to the point that drunk people have been sent to prison for years over tasteless jokes. Similarly, simply browsing websites that are deemed in support of terrorism: a man from Chartres recently received a two-year sentence for the latter.
It's fair to say that the current climate is pretty Orwellian. But if you're not a brown person or a Muslim, you're not what prosecutors are after.
Speaking as somebody who's lived in France, Greece, the UK, the US and Sweden: France is by far the most "multiculturalism-friendly" place of all these. Yes, even more than Sweden.
Like most French people, I'm not proud of my country. But this is something I can be proud of.
(Disclaimer: Some cities are of course less kind to strangers than others; it's not a uniform utopia)
I come from the maghreb region and lived in France for a while. I experienced racism at work and outside of it.
If you are arab looking or black, you better emmigrate to another country like UK/US or even germany for a better chance. If you don't you are doomed.
For those who don't understand what I'm talking about check a movie called "La Haine".
And I agree with you, it might be different in other cities.
To assess this properly, it would be interesting to know what startups in different countries pay to lawyers.
"Man names Wi-Fi network “Daesh 21,” prosecuted under French anti-terror law. New law forbids “public praise” of terrorism, punishable by up to 7 years in prison."
Of course not endorsing anything about those topics, just saying that forbiding any debate on those topics may not be a long-term solution to solve those societal questions. We get the popular far-right party FN for some reason I think.
Edit to bring "my damn sources": about health insurance http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/amendements/2252/AN/801... incitation to anorexia http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2015/04/02/97001-20150402F... saying you should not do abortion: https://www.senat.fr/questions/base/1999/qSEQ990415534.html for other topics, finding sources should be even easier
Our freedom of speech, like in the rest of europe, is slightly more restrictive than in the US (as in: there is a concept of restricted hate speech) but the fact that the FN even exists should go a long way to showcase that you don't get jailed for stuff like that.
And in the future, if you're going to bring extraordinary claims to HN, bring a damn source.
Edit to your edit: I don't think you yourself have read those sources you linked.
Health insurance: What you linked is an amendment that adds sanctions to illegally refusing social security coverage. Whether you think that's OK or not is irrelevant - it's not a speech issue.
"saying you should not do abortion": You are grossly misrepresenting what that is. Abortion is considered an integral right for french women. What your link says is that it's illegal to try to prevent them.
> Cet article punit d'un emprisonnement de deux ans et/ou d'une amende de 30 000 francs le fait d'empêcher ou de tenter d'empêcher une interruption volontaire de grossesse ou les actes préalables : soit en pertubant l'accès aux établissements d'hospitalisation publics ou privés satisfaisant aux dispositions de l'article L. 176 du code de la santé publique ; soit en exerçant des menaces ou tout acte d'intimidation à l'encontre des personnels médicaux et non médicaux travaillant dans ces établissements ou des femmes venues y subir une interruption volontaire de grossesse.
To translate: Preventing, or attempting to prevent a voluntary abortion is punished by two years in prison and/or a 30000 francs fine. "Either by preventing access to hospitals or threatening/intimidating working personnel or patients."
http://www.agipi.com/espace-public/consulter-nos-experts/san...
"Depuis le 1er janvier 2007, des sanctions contre toute personne qui, par quelque moyen que ce soit, inciterait les assurés sociaux à ne plus s’affilier à un organisme de Sécurité sociale ou à ne plus payer leurs cotisations sont applicables. Elles prévoient, entre autre, une peine de six mois de prison et/ou une amende allant de 7 500 euros à 15 000 euros."
Translation: incitating people to have no health insurance at all can get you to jail (up to 6 months).
About abortion: http://www.20minutes.fr/societe/1931599-20160927-ivg-gouvern...
"Si l’amendement du gouvernement est voté, le délit d’entrave concernera désormais les sites qui véhiculent «des allégations ou une présentation faussée, pour induire en erreur dans un but dissuasif sur la nature et les conséquences d’une IVG»". If it is not limitation of freedom of speech, I think it is very close.
http://www.france24.com/fr/20161129-france-episcopat-proposi...
"Si le texte est voté, ces faits seront punis des mêmes peines que l’entrave physique à l’avortement ou à l’information sur l’avortement, soit deux ans de prison et 30 000 euros d’amende."
So presenting biased information about abortion (at least in the "wrong" direction) can get you to jail (up to 2 years). If my sources are correct, this proves my points.
PS: sorry for French quotes. Too lazy to fully translate them.
As your previous source said, not having health insurance is illegal in France. We're a far cry from your original "saying that you don't need health insurance". You can say that as much as you want. You just can't push other people to put themselves in an illegal situation.
> If it is not limitation of freedom of speech, I think it is very close.
[Translated context: It would become illegal to falsify facts about the consequences of abortion]
I want to be very clear: The american concept of "Freedom of speech" does not exist in most of Europe. In most of the world outside of the US in fact. It's even a stretch to say it exists in the US.
When people think "limitations on freedom of speech" they immediately think China and Iran. But in the US, I can't threaten the president (or people in general, but nobody's gonna jail me for that). I can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. I could give you a lot of american examples which are far more grey area than what you've given me in these sources. The US has these limitations, generally for public safety.
In the context of a US-centric forum, claiming that "you can get jailed for speaking against abortions" is abhorrent because the US is still at the stage where abortions are not considered a fundamental right, and there is an ongoing debate about it. Therefore, you think "well, then, half the US would go to jail".
In the context of a country that does have a framework around abortion, that does make it a fundamental right and where it's essentially a non-issue... then it's a lot easier to see why it's illegal to publish false information about it.
This is a country where gays and muslims are treated with respect, where women's rights are respected and where public health is highly valued. In that context, these restrictions are, like american ones, a matter of public safety.
You assume that the state is always right. I agree it is right in most cases, but not always. And calling arguments like "public safety", like "fighting terrorism", is a way for a government to have more power than it ought to (at least from the point of view of its libertarian citizen).
Voting a law should not necessarily close the debate around it. Societal truths may change: "false information" may just be opposite opinions. Saying it is false is not enough to discard it. A non-issue for you (e.g. abortion) may be an issue for the guy or girl next door.
Activists should not be banned from having strange opinions as it is the root of democratic debates. Let them be ashamed in society, but do not jail them. Today's fundamental rights may be revoked tomorrow because society may someday realize that it was, in the end, not such a good idea.
This is basically a political tradeoff between public safety and free speech/freedom in general. I personnally and currently support more free speech. You look like rather supporting public safety. I'd be happy to read your opinion on that topic.
> I generally agree that "inciting" is a loosely defined term and I, too, dislike how easy of a tool it can be for political censorship.
I don't particularly like the idea of restrictions on free speech. But I also don't particularly like when people's health and livelihoods, public safety, the earth's climate are all damaged by sleazy tactics from people who want to make a quick buck.
I don't like that said restrictions are a tool that can be abused by those in power ... but isn't that just about everything? Surveillance? Police forces?
We make tradeoffs because our world is not made of absolutes. The US makes those tradeoffs as well, the line is just elsewhere. Being a "terrorism sympathizer" in the US will potentially earn you a free trip to Cuba. And that is also a tool that has been used for political censorship.
When I look at the end result, though, we have a country where abortion is a right and saying "god hates fags" is not. The US is the other way around. I know which outcome I prefer.
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
And since when is it illegal to talk about homosexuals, non-white people or jews ?
Your point concerning talk about the aforementioned minorities has already been answered.
See: Eric Zemmour
You're allowed to talk about them provided the contents of your speech is "they're great and I love everything about them".
I'm not particularly fond of Zemmour, but his multiple condemnations absolutely qualify as political censorship.
- Condamnation pour incitation à la discrimination raciale en 2011
- Condamnation pour provocation à la haine envers les musulmans
- Condamnation d'I-Télé pour "rupture abusive de contrat"
One is about racial discrimination. One is about inciting hate against muslims. The last one is about a private company. The guy also happens to have written a book about gays where... I'll just quote wikipedia: ""gays" would have been stigmatized and isolated, like the lepers of old."
Help me out here. How do you get from there to "You're only allowed to talk about gays if you say 'they're great and I love everything about them'"?
I truly urge you to read up on this affaire. What he actually said really wasn't that big a deal.
Just to recontextualize this: This is a thread about the viability of startups in France. As I mentioned a bit further up, there are "no hate speech" rules all over Europe. Germany for example is far, far stricter than France about it ... and Berlin has a vibrant startup scene.
I generally agree that "inciting" is a loosely defined term and I, too, dislike how easy of a tool it can be for political censorship. But there's worlds between those details and some of the claims I'm finding in this thread.
Or am I still missing your point?
I wrote a bit more about this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13411875
The law makes racism, antisemitism and homophobia illegal. That's fine for me.