Hacker News Reader

Comment by the_bookmaker | Hacker News Reader

France essentially has inquisition courts, which for example Houellebecq [1] (a prominent author) and Zemmour [2] (a former presidential candidate) had to suffer through.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Houellebecq

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89ric_Zemmourcandi

View on HN

I've commented about this overall situation in France a few times, and yes, they've gone after fundamental rights also before. Which is kind of weird given their history.

EDIT: Over again, some Americans seem to think that this is about the "freedom of speech", whereas, in reality, it is about the freedom of assembly. That said, the situation seems pretty dire, with organizations classified as terrorists on the streets.

I think this is mostly about searching for the solutions that would prevent people from abusing the fundamental rights to advance their anti-democracy agenda.

Well said.

That's not how fundamental rights are meant to work. I'm not a monarchist, but I'm happy to allow monarchists (or communists, or Sharia folk, or Baptists) to push for that form of government.

Democracy is a durable form of government unless it's systemically broken.

I am happy to allow for any state transition that allows for a peaceful reversal of the event (i.e. an undo button). If it's a monarchy, it should be a monarchy with guardrails (i.e. could be deposed by a snap popular vote with 2/3 majority or something)

If the plan of the people, once in power, is to prevent any challenges to their power, we should not run such experiments, and those people do not deserve free speech rights.

Free speech has that paradox unfortunately built into it (see Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance). Universal free speech is a pipe dream you wouldn't enjoy living under.

The 18th-century revolutions that were centered around fundamental rights of man, were pretty hostile to monarchy. France famously guillotined supporters of the monarchy. Even the USA tarred and feathered loyalists or drove them into exile in Canada or the Caribbean. It was only years later, once monarchy wasn’t a realistic possibility any more (or, in France, the public mood had come around to monarchy again) that such advocacy was permitted again. And then later movements for instituting a non-democratic regime, namely fascism or communism, got various degrees of prohibition. So, I’d say it’s pretty normal even for successful democracies to interpret fundamental rights in that light.

Peaceful assembly is speech

It is a seperate basic right so. And as such has to be balanced againstvall the others, inclusing free speech.

Don't even attempt to muddy the waters like this. Zemmour has been sued many times, yes, but only convicted twice. The first time, for example, for saying "businesses should discriminate against blacks and Arabs". He was convicted for incitement to discrimination, an offense in many countries. In fact: he was sued for several things he said, like "traffickers are all black and muslim" which he was acquitted for, as while reproachable falls within freedom of expression. Again: only convicted for things which directly contravene specific laws, such as non-discrimination in hiring.

In sum, nothing to do with tfa.

Zemmour so is one of the few European polititians that are so right wing, they would put people like the space laser lady to shame...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com