france is such a weird place. In some ways it's a very free society. In other ways it's not free at all. Don't most of the euro countries have weird laws about hate speech like this?
E.g. if a Swiss news site has a comment section where users violate anti racism laws, the site owner can be sued since they published and didn't remove it.
Regarding free society. I think each one has its own quirks and difference where they consider someone's freedom ends. E.g. the US's handling of nudity and swear words is absolutely bizarre to me as a European and as someone from the US you might think the restriction on speech and use of symbols many places in Europe have go too far.
Does the law in the US actually regulate that? I was under the assumption that the nudity prohibition on TV and such was simply a voluntary measure. Facebook is welcome to allow it at any moment, they just choose not to, in order to prevent it from becoming a porn repository. I could be totally wrong on this one, but it makes sense, and it explains why it is still totally allowed elsewhere.
Similar to how videogame ratings in the US issued by ESRB are not legally binding and are just a voluntary system that stores use, to decide which games to carry (e.g., most stores won't be carrying Adults Only rated games) and who to sell them to.
But as I understand it public access television is quite heavily regulated in terms of profanity and nudity and you will get fined for violations
https://www.fcc.gov/general/obscenity-indecency-and-profanit...
E.g. The 2004 Superbowl where Janet Jackson flashed her nipples. Viacom paid out US$3.5 million to settle indecency complaints and got fined 500k which got later overruled because it was only "fleeting" indecency. It sounds to me that ruling could have gone either way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_sh...
But don't know how much of that extends to others forms of media than tv.
Which freedoms would that be?
Hate speech is used as an intimidation to restrict both the expression and physical safety of the groups it seeks to intimidate.
or from https://www.britannica.com/topic/hate-speech "speech or expression that denigrates a person or persons on the basis of (alleged) membership in a social group identified by attributes such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, physical or mental disability, and others."
the definitions vary widely. Let's say we nail down a definition. Perhaps closer to Britannica. Then the issue is interpretation.
"speech or expression that denigrates a person or persons on the basis of (alleged) membership in a social group": Even alluding to a matter would deem it poor. I support basketball, as it was a sport I grew up with, and is a part of my identity. If someone says "basketball is a stupid game,", well then that's technically hate speech.
You can't have a free society with restricted speech.
That said, this law is heavily criticized at the moment, for good reasons.
I would use the word fantastic instead.
Trying to block intolerance by force is wrong.
Teach how to overcome it, or just teach to keep it to one's self.
You haven't provided a meaningful answer to your question. For example, praising someone's eyes would be intolerant. Providing a factual description would be intolerance.