Hacker News Reader

Comment by foobarbazqux | Hacker News Reader

Here's a compilation of the tweets in French:

http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2012/10/14/unbonj...

  - <picture of a jew in a concentration camp bed> #UnBonJuif
  - A good jew is hard to cook.
  - A good jew is a dead jew.
  - <picture of ashes pouring out of a hand> #UnBonJuif
  - A good jew is cooked well-done.

Stuff like that. I'm at a bit of a loss for words; I feel a deep sadness about this. These are the French hate speech laws:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France

The courts don't appear keen to convict based on the case history, and I'm guessing these guys will be acquitted.

View on HN

I few days ago I was accused here on HN of being homophobic, you know, like in hating homosexuals, because I expressed my opinion that a child needs a mother and a father.

In other news, here's an interesting discussion on humor: http://philosophybites.com/2011/04/no%C3%ABl-carroll-on-humo...

Your opinion sure is.

His opinion is sexist and not homophobic. He's saying a male father provides specific things that only a male father can provide; likewise with the female mother. He would be opposed to two parents of the same sex, but for sexist reasons.

I'm not saying his judgement is correct, but nature is sometimes sexist (e.g., men naturally build muscles quicker than women due the difference in hormones).

This would also extend to being against a single parent too. Which isn't directly relevant to homophobia (yet that is what people jump to conclusions to)

That's like saying I am against people with one hand because I believe that having two hands is better than having one hand.

I actually have no clue as to what you mean by "being against".

His point is simply that believing in a mother and father being the best environment for a child can be interpreted as being against (or less in favor of) an environment with two parents that are in a same sex relationship (i.e. homophobic) or it can be interpreted as being against (or less in favor of) an environment with a single parent.

But actually, all you are saying is that you believe the ideal environment for a child is a mother and father, presumably living together.

At any rate, even if you were expressing homophobia, it isn't necessarily hate speech. Saying that it's a good idea to burn homosexuals is.

Out of curiosity, do you believe that living with two same sex parents in a healthy relationship is better than a mother and father in an abusive relationship?

> Out of curiosity, do you believe that living with two same sex parents in a healthy relationship is better than a mother and father in an abusive relationship?

Yes.

So if it's any consolation, homophobic people don't believe things like that.

Perfectly worded. What I wish I had said.

Didn't mean to sound like I was antagonizing you or against you. I think what you originally said was fine. I should've thought of a better way to word my comment over "being against". Since yeah my point was basically what you said with the hands.

Either way foobarbazqux's reply comment says this all far better :p

I wouldn't say it's sexist, there's no arbitrary discrimination against either men or women. He's saying neither men nor women can fulfill the requirements on their own. It's not sexist to say that it takes a man and a woman to make a baby.

he's not saying that, he's talking about raising a child, not making one.

Yeah, I know, that was an example of something else that isn't sexist.

What more could one want than a government who suppresses freedom of speech via an over reaching police force? Wait a second..

Well, that's pretty disgusting.

Disgusting was the right word for me - I literally felt ill reading those statements. But should saying things like that be a criminal offense? Personally I would say no.

However, I can also understand the extreme sensitivity in various European countries in this area - especially when there are still people alive who survived the camps.

Tons of other stuff is digusting too.

That shouldn't make excuses and laws to ban free speech.

Free speech has barriers. Like all freedom, if the freedom of one minimizes the freedom of others; or if one specific freedom minimizes another freedom, a fair balance has to be uphold. In the case of freedom of speech, it is such a fair balance to ban incitement of the people in favor of the other forms of freedoms like the right to exist without being subject to such forms of hatred.

France, Germany and many other seem to agree in that point. Those tweets exactly cross the barrier, and the author has to be prosecuted.

Which part is doing it for you? That Twitter would hand over your identifying information because they don't like the contents of your tweets? The idea that governments can prohibit the written expression of thoughts and ideas? Or was it the distasteful tweets of some bigots (or perhaps more likely, just unfunny and immature people) about the jews?

>That Twitter would hand over your identifying information because they don't like the contents of your tweets?

Twitter refused to hand over the data until the French court forced them to.

>The idea that governments can prohibit the written expression of thoughts and ideas?

I have no problem with governments prohibiting hate speech. I have never felt suppressed by these laws because I have never felt the need to express hate speech online or offline.

> "But others who have just as much rights as you and do want to send out distasteful tweets DO feel suppressed."

Good. The majority of people in my country agree that living in a respectful society is more important than having the freedom to say things that you wouldn't want to say. You can find that overly restrictive but then so are traffic lights, queues at the supermarket, clothing, and doors.

>Or was it the distasteful tweets of some bigots (or perhaps more likely, just unfunny and immature people) about the jews?

That's just being willfully ignorant.

In all seriousness, who does get to decide what speech is illegal in your country? If you're about to say something that might upset some group, do you restrain yourself or say it any way and wait for the courts to decide of your speech was lawful? From my American perspective, it sounds like an awful restriction to have.

I wonder what percentage of people in your country feel that their speech has ever been restrained in any way.

Also, what about political speech that is satirical and offensive to some groups, like Parazit or The Daily Show?

It's not about saying things that might upset some group. It's about saying things in a public forum that are deliberately upsetting and abusive and promoting hatred. You don't have to worry about it because you know exactly what you are doing when you do it. It's like worrying about getting a ticket because you accidentally drove in reverse down a one way street. And if you look the vast majority of cases get dismissed.

Also consider that American corporations wield an immense power to restrict speech, and they are quite liberal about doing so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com