Comment by scrollaway | Hacker News Reader

Comment by scrollaway | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I don't think this is off-topic. But you are completely off the mark.

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."

About state health insurance, this link should be clearer, despite not being an official source. People with more Google-fu than me can post other links if they wish.

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.

> [inciting] people to have no health insurance at all can get you to jail (up to 6 months).

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.

First, thank you for changing the overall tone of your comment.

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 said this in another thread, but I want to make it clear here as well:

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com