Slashdot Mirror
In France, Only Journalists Can Film Violence
BostonBTS sends word that the French Constitutional Council has just made it illegal to film violence unless you are a professional journalist (or to distribute a video containing violence). The law was approved exactly 16 years after amateur videographer George Holliday filmed Los Angeles police officers beating Rodney King. The Council was tidying up a body of law about offenses against the public order, and wanted to ban "happy slapping." A charitable reading would be that the lawmakers stumbled into unintended consequences. Not according to Pascal Cohet, a spokesman for French online civil liberties group Odebi: "The broad drafting of the law so as to criminalize the activities of citizen journalists unrelated to the perpetrators of violent acts is no accident, but rather a deliberate decision by the authorities, said [Cohet]. He is concerned that the law, and others still being debated, will lead to the creation of a parallel judicial system controlling the publication of information on the Internet."
Let's hope security camera footage doesn't count.
Were the French tired of all the car-burning footage?
So, what do you have to do in order to be considered a journalist in France?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
And in Soviet Russia, only violence can film journalists!
oh, forget it.
Sounds like their intent was to create something more like the Good Samaritan laws, when something went horribly wrong. Trying to get people to help citizens in need is one thing, but this goes a bit too far... I'm not too clear on the workings of the French government, does the Constitutional Council the last step in the process of becoming a law, or are there additional hurdles?
Visualize the world of wine
How are you supposed to film something you're running away from?
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
the French Constitutional Council has just made it illegal to film violence unless you are a professional journalist (or to distribute a video containing violence).
so where's the line between amateur videographer, and aspiring reality-tv cameraman? Or maybe we need a venn diagram with professional journalist in there somewhere too.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
If you don't record violence, then it never happened.
Right?
Hey! NO CARRIER
Best Windows Freeware
And if you film something like that on accident or suppose the authorities don't have the proof they need or someone is getting prosecuted unjustly or, as in the case of king, was being beaten by the very people who should have been protecting him you're just supposed to sit on le evidence?
Wait a minute... Is not France, like, the only hope the humanity has to avoid the, caugh-caugh, Fascism of the "single-polar world", in which we all found ourselves after the USSR's (unfortunate, was not it?) collapse?
Trolling? Maybe, but only a little...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
1: Make it so you need a journalism license 2: Dont issue licenses 3: Rule the worl...err France
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
My French friends, you can always sell your video catching violence to CNN as their "citizen journalists".
Or we can just set up a site, dedicated to violent video footages, register it with one of the Press organizations and we can declare anybody who submits to us our accredited journalist.
Wonder if they considered that this means all CCTV camera operators are breaking the law should violence be picked up on them unless they become journalists...
I wonder if this new law makes video of crimes inadmissible in court, if it was filmed by a non-journalist.
To be a journalist, you should have to publish what you record. What other business does the government have in defining a journalist, except the essential operation that defines them.
And if you don't publish, then how is it illegal to have a record of what your own senses experienced?
Why should media corporations that officials prefer have all the privileges? Already many amateur bloggers are better than practically all the pro journalists working today.
--
make install -not war
That the US doesn't have a monopoly on stupidity in the world. They just have most of it.
Because the French are so much better.
France gave us the word "liberty," yet the french do not value freedom of speech nearly as much as Americans do. In fact, most of western europe denies its citizens free speech rights (especially when discussing things the government can subjectively determine to be "hateful" concepts).
The US government has made a lot of mistakes recently, but at least Americans can be proud that we are still protecting our most fundamental human right.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
If they really wanted to do this, it would make more sense to simply criminalize the recording or broadcasting of real violence (as opposed to possible dramatic acting) in the context of entertainment. Things which are genuinely educational, informative, or newsworthy are not always filmed by actual journalists, but often by people who just happened to be in the right place at the right time.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Maybe the French will allow bloggers to qualify as journalists. Let me rephrase, hopefully France will allow bloggers to qualify as journalists. They can create a system based on posts, RSS feeds, etc., in order to determine qualification. - Ayal Rosenthal
Social liberal, fiscal conservative, always sarcastic.
The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
So under this definition, wouldn't filming the Zidane Headbutt in the World Cup be considered criminal to the cameraman that filmed it?
I guess sports cameramen better start practicing their journalism skills.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
I can understand the desire to cut down on violence done for entertainment purposes, but, as suggested by the article and summary, this can have a dire negative consequence: someone who video tapes brutality, especially where police are involved, for the purpose of presenting it as evidence.
Perhaps if this would actually decrease the violence, it might not be so bad. Instead, those who do such "happy slapping" (wtf?) will find a way around it, by distributing CDs, or planning the fights and getting an audience, or such other things.
It's not going to take care of the root problem, just make it easier to cover up violence (again, especially when police are involved).
After all, there's nothing wrong if you don't see or know anything is wrong. Peacefulness by Ignorance. As bad as Security by Obscurity.
As an aside, we have (or at least used to have) a similar problem to "happy slapping" in America: bum fights. People, usually teens or college-aged males, take a video camera out to run down areas and get bums to fight in exchange for a hot meal or something, tape it, and stick it on the net. I know it was an issue about five or six years back, but I don't know if it's still a problem now.
A riot broke out around the French Academy of General Studies (acronym rarely used) as thousands tried and failed to register as licensed journalists. Amidst the fray the irony was as deep as the blood in the streets, as those who were involved were unsure whether they had yet obtained the rights to film the event. Furthermore, those who had successfully registered found it difficult to film themselves during the incident as they were overcome by the mob. Police had no idea who was legally allowed to film the event and, because they had to turn off their cameras due to not being journalists themselves, no solid proof of the perpetrators has survived.
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
Being an American, I plead ignorance regarding the EU constitution, but, A) Did it ever get ratified, and B) can this move possibly be legal under that document? If so, I'd say it's time to give it its first amendment (irony intended).
I wonder how this could be reworded to avoid including activities that would be considered unethical (bum wars, illegal street fights, etc)?
How about: Filming violence acts for the purpose of profit or the encouragement of said violent act.
Still doesn't deal with "tame" violence such as BSDM videos etc.
The being said, whether you're behind the camera or not I think there are probably existing laws that deal with these situations. I know most countries have laws against aiding and abetting illegal acts (including illegal fights, etc)
Call me a cynic, but I suspect that politicians draft overly broad laws on purpose, in an effort to criminalize as much as possible. They can create so many complicated laws that it is impossible for most citizens to even be aware of what is and what is not legal. This later allows them to selectively apply the law for political ends. As Cardinal Richelieu said, "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
Sorry. No film at 11.
Happy Slappy Hero Pup!
You never expect irony, do you?
Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
@iyfwrestling
Good point. Am I going to believe your comments or my lying eyes?
Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
are you still required to help the victim?
The police are supposed to do their job properly no matter what the suspect is supposed to have done.
Give me a break. In the states, it's called "filming an assault." Why attach a cutesy-poo name to an otherwise illegal activity?
Guess they've just outlawed any surveillance camera that films violence, including their own. Oops!
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
They are in the same place they always have been: in your imagination, just like every other cliched political generalization used by politic-junkies who enjoy dividing people on every front they possibly can.
You think saying stupid shit like "So where are the X-Issue people now?" anectodally makes you appear right or smart. I think it just makes you look like you have nothing to add, and are a little too slow to realize that fact before you run your mouth.
Somewhat off topic, but meh...
.45 at about 2 miles away.
Someone attempting this "happy slapping" here is likely to get the perpetrator shot. I wouldn't say I live in a rough neighborhood, but I'm usually only outside at night, walking my dog. Suffice to say I think it's wise to carry my pistol when I'm out walking around 10:00pm.
Last night was the first time in the 5 months I've lived there that I've heard gunshots while out walking. Over the course of 15 minutes I heard 3 sets of *pop pop pop pop pop pop* around 10:30pm. Not that I'm terribly qualified, but I'd guess a
If two guys came running up to me at 10:00 at night I'd try to find somewhere defensible have my hand on or near my pistol. This would all be done, of course, as nonchalantly as possible; giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
Unless of course you happen to call someone a faggot :).
Freedom, apparently, isn't in the mix, as in free speech.
I feel awful for them, but they probably feel awful for Americans, what with the incredible liberties that we've lost.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
There is a huge potential problem brewing. And almost nobody in the "online community" understands it.
Let's say there is an altercation between a cop and a young minority person. When the dust clears, said minority person is dead. Two hours later a video shows up on YouTube showing the cop beating the person with a large club. This is picked up, played on the nightly news. Everyone in the town sees it.
Cop is convicted because "everone knows" he did it.
The video is later shown to be an utter fabrication by two college students looking for fame.
Under today's law in the US, the college students can't be charged with anything. The video would never be admitted into court as evidence, but it would be fresh in the minds of all the jurors and couldn't possibly be excluded from their minds.
We have skated pretty close to some TV stations doing this kind of thing in the past, but most know better now. They don't accept just anything. Photoshopping pictures is being done, and some people are getting caught. In the US most news organizations are aware of the problem and are somewhat sensitive about it. It probably would take a case like this to really bring it home to the "profressionals", but we are already seeing a lot of amateur content making it out that cannot be verified and is subject to all kinds of fraud.
But "everyone" knows "seeing is believing" and so they are going to take anything that even looks real as the absolute truth.
Perhaps France is trying to slide away from this, just a little bit? We're ripe for some real juicy stuff in the US and until it happens there isn't going to be any restriction on so-called citizen journalists putting video out that purports to show crimnal activity. And it will be impossible to keep it away from a jury, leading to instant convictions.
That article(s) was educational. I haven't had to look up so many terms in 30 years. Nothing like a definition that uses another word you don't know ;) Oh well, i now know: chiv, ned, yob, and more.
The so-called "happy slappers" are a serious problem in the UK and continental Europe. Perhaps you're not familiar with who they are, or what they do. Let me tell you. The vast majority of them are the children of immigrants and refugees who moved to Europe from countres in Africa, Central Asia, India and the Middle East. Of course, there are domestic "happy slappers", but they tend to be in the minority.
For a number of reasons (poor language skills, almost no work ethic, a lack of European cultural understanding, etc.), these youth gather in gangs, and proceed to slap random individuals while videoing them with their cell phone cameras. They tend to target rather helpless victims, including younger children, the elderly, and women. They usually don't severely injure their victims, but it is still assault nevertheless.
Now, as an American I found it to be quite difficult to understand when I first moved to Europe. If a bunch of little punks had tried that sort of bullshit back in Omaha, they'd have likely gotten the living hell beat out of them. But Europe's a different place. People don't dare to fight back against these youth, as they will assuredly be convicted of committing a "hate crime". Politicians won't directly address the problem because doing so may be seen as politically incorrect. It's really pretty sad.
> Apparently, they just passed a law making it illegal. I mean, didn't you read the article? ;)
Cette loi, c'est très stupide.
Would it be so hard to make the law so that anyone who was part of a planned assault an accessory to it, even if they didn't actually participate? That way, the act of filming or possessing such a film wouldn't be illegal, but happy slapping would be.
Bet the LAPD would have loved to have a law like this handy during the whole Rodney King incident!
Unless movie stores are now journalists.
Also, the entire motive behind this is because someone dared to expose something that was AGAINST THE LAW.
(I assume Police Brutality is against the law in france?)
I see. He fits your definition of scumbag, therefore his life is worthless and the police should simply have shot him out of hand.
I think I would argue that exactly that kind of scumbag is why restraints are put on the police. Awesome police powers must also carry awesome responsibility.
I would have to try hard to care less about Rodney King on a personal level. However, I care mightily how he was treated by the control and enforcement arm of the State.
This is probably lost on you, but I'm obliged to whack the horse one more time:
When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent...
does france have cameras that read your license plate (or your face) everywhere like the UK?
How is this going to affect the French S&M film industry? This could put thousands of paddle carrying leather clad french men and women out of work.
... since your next "happy slap" might earn you a "happy slug" to your "tiny brain."
I know you're just a trolling nutbag who wants attention and would be thrilled if people you don't like could be sodomized on sight, but yes. The rest of us do not evaulate whether the police are brutal by who the brutalizing is done to, but rather by what exactly the police brutally do.
>>Cop is convicted because "everone(sic.) knows" he did it.
People aren't convicted without a trial.
>>The video would never be admitted into court as evidence
There you go. If that's all there is against the cop, then at least someone (if not all) on the jury will have enough sense to come to the right judgment.
It would still be pretty bad for the cop, but he's not going to go to prison from some fake video. Our judicial system is not perfect, but most of the time it works pretty well. The situation you imagine was possible before the internet, and it has not been a major problem.
If violence is illegal then what's the problem? Are they saying that the cameraman is an accomplice to the attack? Can't they already cover egger-ons as an accessory to the crime? I'm not sure how the laws work over there but it seems like a round about way to tackle the issue. I'll never understand why politicians push such broad reaching laws for very narrow problems. Wait let me rephrase that, I'll never understand why HONEST politicians do that.
In America you can film whatever happens in a public area, whenever. The feds might confiscate that footage as part of an investigation, but you can still do it and it's well within your rights. There was amateur footage of 9/11 and it led to a better understanding of what happened that day. In France this would now be illegal, although I can't imagine how they would enforce it since the act itself would no doubt be illegal.
In mother Russia, the violence films you!
or else!
How is this going to be enforced? Are all news reporters going to have to get special permits that let them video tape violent acts?
Oh, a lesson in history from Mr. I'm my own grandpa.
Copyright is a form of censorship. Justifiable perhaps, but censorship nonetheless. (And censorship can be justifiable, as the usual example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater demonstrates). I suspect copyright prevents more speech than just about any other law. I believe the copyright laws we have today are excessive; the more excessive they are, they more they censor.
Even if you take a narrow conception of free speech protections only applying to government censorship, copyright applies because it is enforced and enacted by government. The fact that it is justified on economic grounds rather than political ones makes no difference. When applied as intended, copyright prevents the spread of ideas and information which are inherently political. Corrupted, it can be and is deliberately used for political reasons. We can clearly see this today with voting machine companies using copyright to prevent criticism of their technoolgy, DMCA takedowns of news clips and comment on YouTube, and so on.
I say this not because I wish to give France a pass - this law sounds appalling - but because I don't wish to see the U.S. given one either.
That would be the joke, yes.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
What's pathetic is your knowledge of history. Do you know how many French citizens died fighting the Nazi invasion? Do you know how many French people participated in the resistance? Go ask the US military whether the French Resistance was a myth!
The only people who sympathize with the Vichy regime in modern France are the tiny far-right parties and they are completely marginalized.
Le Cagot patted the hostess's bottom and sent her after their food. "I don't think we have made a great friend there, Niko. And he is a man to be feared." Le Cagot laughed, "After all, his father was French and very active in the resistance." Hel smiled. "Have you ever met one who was not?"
"True. It is astonishing that the Germans managed to hold France with so few divisions, considering that everyone who wasn't draining German resources by the clever maneuver of surrendering en masse and making the Nazis feed them was vigorously and bravely engaged in the Resistance. Is there a village without its Place de la Resistance? But one has to be fair; one has to understand the Gallic notion of resistance. Any hotelier who overcharged a German was in the Resistance. Each whore who gave a German soldier the clap was a freedom fighter. All those who obeyed while viciously withholding their cheerful morning 'bonjours' were heroes of liberty!"
Militant Islam will make the French into dhimmi.
If you see a violent act, film it, and blog about it I'll pay you 1 Euro.
This token payment should be enough to qualify you as a professional journalist.
--
j/k, I don't have that kind of money, but SOMEONE does.
As usual. Instead of finding the root of the problem and eliminating that, they issue a law that not only is pointless, it actually can be helping the criminals.
It's not like beating someone up in the first place is legal, and the punishment for doing this outweighs by magnitudes the taping. Still, people do it. Does ANYONE think outlawing taping it would change anything? Does anyone think the 'happy slappers' are gonna think now "Hey, beating up is fun but noooooo, we can't tape it anymore so it ain't fun no more"? Does anyone really think this is changing anything AT ALL?
Instead, it's now illegal to tape someone beating up someone and thus creating evidence against the thug. Nice work, France. Protect your criminals.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
> I know you're just a trolling nutbag who wants attention....
Pot meet kettle. Why not try attacking his ideas instead of launching a pointless personal attack? Start with pointing out which of the things he assterted are false:
That Rodney King was
1) speeding (in a totally reckless manner)
2) probably high on PCP
3) resisted arrest, tried to attack a policeman
4) had to be beaten into submission
I'd say someone who meets all four of those qualifications could rightly be called a 'scumbag', but we will probably have to agree to disagree. But what isn't debatable is #4 since that was the primary issue in the trial and the verdict of the jury is final.
> The rest of us do not evaulate whether the police are brutal by who the brutalizing is done to, but rather
> by what exactly the police brutally do.
Despite this event being a key part of the mythology of the left in the US, the plain fact is that Rodney King was not the victim of excessive force. By exactly the same relentless logic that OJ didn't kill his ex wife. The jury in neither case was hung, there was no mistrial or a case tossed on appeal by a techicality, both were unambigious not guilty verdicts. So pull yer panties up and get over it.
Democrat delenda est
What have your eyes seen? The jury acquitted the policemen because they saw the whole tape, not the few bits they showed on TV. What did they see? A man so high that even tasers wouldn't put him down, resisting arrest, attacking the policemen.
Rodney King is no victim, he's just a junkie. Here's his life since then: arrested for spousal assault in '99; ordered to undergo a year of drug treatment in '01, after pleading guilty to indecent exposure under the influence of PCP; and AGAIN caught driving under the influence of PCP and resisting arrest in '03.
These are the facts. I'm not making up anything, just check Wikipedia.
Circumcision is child abuse.
A little outfit known as FOX News may have escaped your notice. It's only the most watched cable news network in the US, so it's understandable why you might not have heard of it. That should fit the bill for a news source that is supportive (or even biased in favor of) the (current) US government.
> Cop is convicted because "everyone knows" he did it.
IANAL, but I have served jury duty. You don't get to look at evidence as a juror until the judge deems it admissible. You get screened out during jury selection of you've already seen it. This is why juries are sequestered.
> Under today's law in the US, the college students can't be charged with anything. The video would never be admitted into court as evidence, but it would be fresh in the minds of all the jurors and couldn't possibly be excluded from their minds.
Well, for starters, the person aggrieved could have their conviction overturned and could sue those two for defamation. Further, they might be able to find some charges like fabricating evidence.
Remember, just because a crime involves new technology, that doesn't mean we need all new laws. Often times, there are straightforward applications of existing law. E.G. "identity theft" can be prosecuted as fraud, "cyber bullying" as defamation, etc. depending on the circumstances of the case.
Honestly, if anything, we're making up too many special-case laws for absolutely screwball crap. I mean, just WHY does 110 USC 18 see the need to regulate how large a TV a business can have (55" diagonal, FYI) before it turns into "copyright infringement" just by letting people watch it!?
We'd do better to have fewer, more general laws and let juries decide whether they fit the crime. Same for tax laws, too, for that matter, but politicians will *never* want to give up that kind of control.
Wisest words someone has ever said in these discussions.
Yeah, because if the law prohibiting assault doesn't deter me, surely the law prohibiting the videotaping of the assault will.
Do you really believe these Blue Knights would have behaved the same if they knew they were being recorded?
They way they treated him should not have been about the kind of person he was seen to be ("He was a cop-killer, I could see it in his eyes." -- Sergeant Stacey Cornell Koon)
Brutalizing people makes them and anyone that sympathizes with them brutal
The whole neo-fascism movement must warm your little heart.
Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
I wonder how many people wanted to say that, typed "ctrl-f soviet" and found this comment
... in which Melmoth is sentenced to two years hard labor for writing without a permit. (Not *publishing*... merely writing.)
Yes, this results in the godawful pun: "No artistic license...?"
(And yes, I know that Dave Sim has become a complete nutcase, but the early storylines and art in Cerebus are still pretty amazing.)
So... you do not challenge the statement that Rodney King was high, speeding, resisted arrest, and attacked the policemen?
;-)
Your honor, I rest my case.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Take your amateur footage and put it online.
Get an AdSense Account.
Poof, you're a professional.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Not at all. Just as he was unarmed. You might try a little Kafka with your Joseph Wambaugh.
Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
In Slashdot, titles resemble Soviet Russia jokes.
In South Korea, only old people can film you!
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
June 22, 2004, Tuesday
6 0713FA385D0C718EDDAF0894DC404482
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG (NYT); National Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 17, Column 1, 554 words
Republican-controlled Senate votes to uphold Bush administration's policy of barring news photographs of flag-covered coffins of service members killed in Iraq; Democratic measure to instruct Pentagon to allow pictures is defeated in 54-to-39 vote; Republican Sens Olympia J Snowe and John McCain vote in favor of permitting news photographs of coffins; Sen Frank Lautenberg, who introduced measure, says majority of Senate is helping Pres Bush to conceal from American people true costs of war in Iraq
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F
The Violence films you. uh, that doesn't really make sense either.
Why does Linux need NTFS support? I have used Linux's NTFS read support to back up dead Windows machines, but have never needed to write it. What would you use write support for?
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
The most pathetic thing is the USA has never learned from WW2, the Viet Cong, Saddam Hussain, Osama Bin Laden, Augusto Pinochet and many more, all one time allies and then enemies of the US, and there's twice as many tyrants that are still loyal to the US, all financially backed by the USA, trained and armed without thought to their politics, because they served to fight some real or imagined enemy when it was convenient to the US. The USA's short sighted enemy of my enemy is my friend foreign policy still causes war and suffering across the world, and still the USA stabs it's closest allies in the back in favour of whatever tin pot dictator it thinks will give it an advantage against whoever their boggy man of choice is or will help snatch some economic resource.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
It's amazing how you race-ify this phenomenon, given that it apparently came out of Britain, and every video of the type I have seen has showcased WHITE, ENGLISH SPEAKING kids.
But I guess it's those god damned coloured people, eh?
Anonosuck4
or 11? these things do go to 11 don't they?
nice to see on slashdot
Last October two Frenchmen were prosecuted for criticizing a blatantly fraudulent TV segment produced by France 2 TV. The segment ostensibly showed a Palestinian boy being killed by Israeli gunfire - further analysis showed the video to be almost certainly staged. http://www.dirckthenoorman.com/?p=182
It's France, not the US. As long as it's any country but the US it's ok, after all this is Slashdot isn't t?
Most of the time it is journalists who are prevented from filming violence, particularly when it is possibly criminal and perpetrated by their own countries.
e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6419235.stm
But how will they televise the Rugby World Cup this year from France if filming of violence is not permitted. Rugby just wouldn't be the same sport if they couldn't beat each other up.
In Soviet Russia, only film can violate journalists!
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
> they're one of the only nations in Europe to accept refugees and grant asylum.
_ percap-inflow-1990-99-per-capita
Most countries in western Europe DO accept refugees and grant asylum. Btw, France doesn't come off all that well, ranking low in terms of inflow of refugees per capita:
#1 Sweden
#2 Denmark
#3 Germany
#4 Switzerland
#5 Norway
#6 Austria
#7 Canada
#8 Netherlands
#9 Australia
#10 United States
#11 Finland
#12 United Kingdom
#13 New Zealand
#14 France
(...)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_ref_inf_199
I'm not versed in French law, but from what I understand, assault is illegal there, so I don't see how "happy slapping" (when you're the "slapper") is any more illegal. I guess they wanted to make the filmer of an assault when the filmer is associated with the assaulters illegal as well. Maybe they left out the "when..." clause?
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
Remember, the left-right spectrum is an economic spectrum, ranging from pure communism at the far left to pure capitalism at the far right, and everything in between. Not all leftists believe in civil liberties (look at Stalin, Mao, and Castro, for example). Respect of civil liberties are represented on a different scale.
The left-right spectrum is not a purely economic one. In its original sense, the Left were those in favor of individual liberty (of both the economic and civil variety), what we today would call Libertarians in America, or Liberals in Europe; while the Right were those in favor of maintaining elitist control of both person and property. After that original Left pretty much won in most of the world, a new Left emerged advocating socialist/communist economic policies; and for a while, the Left-Right divide was almost a purely economic one, with everyone generally in favor of civil liberty, and the Right now those opposed to the socialist reforms, as opposed to the new Left. Some of those on the "new left" even went so far as to completely reverse most of the benefits gained by the old Left, like those totalitarians you named.
But there are still vestiges of the older Right around, though they now ostensibly support capitalism (though what they really support is themselves being rich and powerful), and in recent years they've been gaining power again (ironically under the banner of the "new Right"). Trying to fit all four of these positions (the old Left; the new Left; the new Right; and the totalitarians you mentioned, who are not too different from the old Right) onto a linear spectrum is futile; the new Left and Right aren't further along the same axis as their old counterparts, they're along a different axis entirely. The old Left-Right was a pure battle between authority and liberty. The new Left-Right is, quite literally, orthogonal to that (on a Nolan chart at least). The modern Right sides with the old Left on economic issues, and the modern Left sides more with the old Right on economic issues; and more perplexingly, those with authoritarian positions most similar to the old Right are now most often considered Leftist (like those you mentioned), while those with libertarian positions most similar to the old Left are now considered Rightist!
But it's all a big bag of hooey anyway. The only consistent meaning to "Left" and "Right" are "progressive", generally support by the underdogs, who want a change for their own betterment; and "conservative", generally supported by the big dogs on top who don't want their comfy spot in life disturbed. These notions map well to the origins of the terms (the commoners on the Left of parliament and the lords on the Right), but they don't evaluate consistently into any particular position on either civil or economic matters, because what's new today will be old in a few generations, and what's old today will become new again.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
He was unarmed. But he was quite big and strong. And he was so fuckin' high on PCP that EVEN A TASER DID NOT BRING HIM DOWN. What should a policeman do in such a situation -- try to reason with a violent junkie? Take off your damn rose-tinted peacenik glasses!
Circumcision is child abuse.
Exactly what "incredible liberties" have we lost?
Consider:
1) walk into an airport lounge from outside the airport. Count the cameras and inspections to you and your goods. We were once innocent until proven guilty, and could not be searched without probable cause.
2) every phone call you make, and every email you send, is inspected at minimum, by a bot. We were once innocent until proven guilty, and could not be searched without probable cause.
3) you can be denied access to international transit, and without recourse, and without explanation, at will of the government.
4) your government (and mine) can overthrow a sovereign government based on the flimsiest of contrived evidence, without a plan, and waste perhaps $100billion based on chutzpah of the executive branch.
If I have to go on, you've just come out of a coma that you fell into back in 2000.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
it is sad to note that its evolution has also mimicked the recent evolution of the U.S. Supreme Court
Exactly what world are you living in?
At the start of the Bush Presidency the SC was 5-4 Left-Right. It is now (2007) 5-4 Left-Right. Notice there was no change. O'Conner sometimes voted middle, but mostly Right. There has been no fundamental shift in the court's politics. The only O'Conner pro-Left issue that may swing is Affirmative Action (or as the British more accurately call it positive discrimination [i.e. the right kind of racist]).
Clinton got to appoint 2 left justices. Appointing judges in your political spectrum is what the game is about. But Bush didn't change anything, regardless of what Chicken Littles may tell you.
5-4 Left-Right when Bush came in. 5-4 Left-Right when he leaves.
Here is the actual text:
;o)
" Section 4 bis
Dispositions générales
Art. 222-43-2. - Est constitutif d'un acte de complicité des atteintes volontaires à l'intégrité de la personne prévues par les articles 222-1 à 222-14-1 et 222-23 à 222-31 et est puni des peines prévues par ces articles le fait d'enregistrer sciemment par quelque moyen que ce soit, sur tout support que ce soit, des images relatives à la commission de ces infractions.
Le fait de diffuser l'enregistrement de telles images est puni de cinq ans d'emprisonnement et 75 000 d'amende.
Le présent article n'est pas applicable lorsque l'enregistrement ou la diffusion résulte de l'exercice normal d'une profession ayant pour objet d'informer le public ou est réalisé afin de servir de preuve en justice. ""
This translates to (there are no doubt a few approximations in the terms, I'm no lawyer, but the translation is otherwise valid):
" Is considered an accomplice act to voluntary assault of a person's integrity as specified in articles 222-1 to 222-14-1 and 222-23 to 222-31, and is punished with the sentences specified in these articles, the act of knowingly recording, using any means, under any format, images relating to comitting these offenses.
The act of publishing recordings of such images is punished by five years imprisonment and a 75,000 fine.
The present article does not apply when the recording or publishing is a result of the normal activity of a profession which invovles informing the public or is done to serve as proof in court."
So filming your local police officers beating people up remains legal, as it can be used as proof in court. Filming any scene of violence where you're not an accomplice remains legal, as it can always be used in court... I'm not saying this law is good. It's just far from what the english web seems to be making it out to be.
Oh, and for all the WWII comments before... Why don't you find a real reason for hating the french? Even better yet, why don't you make your OWN opinion on the french? Generally, if you have a bad time with the french, you probably only have yourself to blame (or a run of bad luck, like any nation, the french have morons too...). French bashing just for the sake of it is *so* last season
Which are all apparently registered with a card in france :
""- Le journaliste professionnel est celui qui a pour occupation principale, régulière et rétribuée l'exercice de sa profession dans une ou plusieurs publications quotidiennes ou périodiques ou dans une ou plusieurs agences de presse et qui en tire le principal de ses ressources" quote from CCIJP journaliste definition
Roughly a journalist is someone which spend the main time, AND regular time, of its professional time in one or more publication or press agency and get from it his resource (money).
Note that this also somehow include (later) people which are self employed and sell their article/photo to newspaper as long as it is their main regular job ("a la pige") and somehow also include director, press printer etc....etc... IOW : not only what the average people call the journalsite themselves but also the people enabling the publication (quote : Sont "assimilés aux journalistes professionnels les collaborateurs directs de la rédaction : Rédacteurs-traducteurs, sténographes-rédacteurs, rédacteurs-réviseurs, reporters-dessinateurs, reporters-photographes, à l'exclusion des agents de publicité et de tous ceux qui n'apportent, à un titre quelconque qu'une collaboration occasionnelle." a bunch of profession like stenographer , chef redactor etc.... all associated to redaction).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Google Defines
Violence is a general term to describe actions, usually deliberate, that cause or intend to cause injury to people, animals, or non-living objects.
I am so going to injure my RAM by running them intentionally at 2.75V!!!! noes!!!
Seriously all you gotto do to submit footage is to go into a coffee shop, upload the vid to the press.
Oh, ZUS alors!
France now has 751 "sensitive urban zones" with est. 5M people living in them. I don't think this problem is going away any time soon.
The so is effectively illegal to film that show there now.
But seriously that means the law enforcement can't have cameras anymore (or has to turn them off if violence occurs)? Also if there is a riot that springs out you can't film it as evidence either. This seems like it could be a big problem and those were just minor situations that could arise.
"To be is to do." --Socrates
"To do is to be." -- Aristotle
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
This has really severe implications.
Imagine you notice a convenience store being robbed. It is illegal to whip out your camera and take pictures or film the robbery in progress.
Also, it may make security cameras illegal. If the robbery becomes violent and it's caught on tape, and the owner is not a journalist, then the perpetrator can sue the store owner for filming him.
It is quite onerous. You have to either be an accredited foreign journalist - registered with the French authorities if you are resident in France - or you have to be a member of the French journalist's union and earn a significant part of your revenue from journalism. Because of this many "journalists" working for the press and media don't have professional journalist status - they are called pigiste because they work "à la pige" - that is on an article by article basis, sometimes independently.
I would have thought that the the guy who filmed the Rodney King video would have been considered as a pigiste by the French courts and, after checking with a French judge this morning, pigiste would be likely to be considered as a professional journalist for the purpose of the law. Obviously this would have to be tested in court.
It would be nice if people actually went and looked at the figures, rather than simply regurgitating baseless opinions. The French lost 212,000 military personnel during World Ward 2, they also lost 267,000 civilians.
In comparision the Americans lost 407,000 military personnel in total, some 130,000 of which were in Europe. Total civilians killed were 11,200.
And if you really think that they Americans came in (late) and saved the day, then look at the Russian casualties, 10,700,000 military personnel and 11,500,000 civilians. This was some 13% of their population. The USA lost under 1% of its population.
Was it around also before they decided not to support Bush's little adventure in Iraq?
Oh, heavens yes. I suspect it was around from the moment the War ended, although I think it got its biggest boost during the De Gaulle years, when many Americans felt that they were basically being snubbed by a people they had just spent a whole lot of blood and treasure to first liberate, and then subsequently rebuild. (Nonwithstanding that the Russians did also spend a lot of blood and treasure, I think most Americans felt that there was some kinship between France and the U.S., and so when De Gaulle basically spurned the West in favor of playing each side against the other, it was taken a lot worse than had, say, Turkey done the same thing.)
I don't know what the general zeitgeist was in the U.S. regarding France, prior to WWII (I think it was rather favorable, though), but it definitely turned sour during the Cold War.
The recent political situation has certainly exacerbated the situation, but it didn't just start yesterday, or with Bush. (In fact, the Simpsons quote in my Subject, you'll find, predates Bush -- it was from 1995.)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Actually, professionalism is defined by (1) education and (2) expertise. In many cases, (2) is more than sufficient if in large enough amount.
Feel free to define your own language as it suits you, but to the rest of us, a "professional" is someone who does a particular thing as their "profession," that is, how they make a living, or at least how they occupy themselves. It is to say, that you are in that particular line of work, most usually for profit of some sort or another.
If you change oil all day and people pay you for it, you're a professional oil-changer. If you eat hot dogs all day, and people pay you for it, you're a professional hot-dog-eater. You may not think that either one really requires much in the way of skill, however, the people who pay them money to do their respective things, demonstrate otherwise. If they didn't have skills, they wouldn't be paid (either money, or attention).
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
One receives 6 weeks or so of welfare, after which one must look out for oneself.
This is true, on paper, for one particular kind of welfare. However, we have (naturally -- this is the U.S., where the government abhors simplicity in the same way nature abhors vacuum) many kinds and varieties and flavors of welfare.
The most persistent kind is not unemployment per se, but child support. Basically, if you're not getting a check from the government, and you're female, you're only nine months away from one. And you get another one with each mouth you can pop out of your vagina. (And you get to dock the bastards' father's salary, if he has one.)
So, as a result, there's profit -- or at least, a greatly increased standard of living -- if you can produce a few kids, collect welfare checks, and then spend the money on yourself. The children, who you probably didn't want in the first place, will probably turn into criminals and end up in various government institutions (ending with prison) -- another cost -- plus your medical care.
Child assistance payments, probably more than anything else, destroyed much of what held together Black family culture in many inner cities; where communities were once dependent on churches and each other for support, and there was a benefit to preserving one's reputation and standing in the community (so that people would help you, if you needed it), the replacement of voluntary charities by Government destroyed those social safety nets, and replaced them with one that is vast, anonymous, and uncaring. There's no longer any benefit to not doing things that are widely considered to be immoral, because as long as it's not outright illegal (and even then, if you don't get caught by the bureaucracy), you'll still get the same check.
Sorry guys, this is going to be a bit long
French are essentially a non-agressive people, the last time we INVADED another country in a formal war was probably in 1804 with Napoleon going all the way to Moscow (and back quicker than he went)
In the meantime (since 1804) and outside of WW periods the US has invaded Mexico (Alamo), Cuba (1905), Vietnam, Grenade, Panama, Irak (2 times), I didn't count Korea because it was a UN mandate and so I could also left aside the first Irak war
France is situated in the heart of Europe and more interestingly on the Atlantic wall, making it a VERY, VERY interesting place of land for Germany for example, check out a map and tell me why Germany has had no navy ? Because it can't take if out of it's harbours without going by England which is traditionally the great maritime power of Europe, and when you're a maritime power you have COLONIES, and when you have colonies you have MONEY
In the 2 WW where the french army was REALLY bad we were "taken by surprise" each time, it's not an excuse, it's a REASON for our defeats, besides the fact that each time the bulk of the German people WANTED war and were prepared for it and that the French didn't the French military command was/is UTTERLY HOPELESS
Since France is not a belligerent country the military career is FAR LESS appealing that in Germany at the beggining of XX century for example, thus Germany produced FAR BETTER soldiers and we had to stick with 70 years old generals using outadated tactics with absolutely NO SENSE of reality
In 1914 the Germans used an excuse to start the war and invade France, they were ready and willing, we were not, after a disastrous summer we managed to stop them some 40km east of Paris before "locking" the front, the same thing happened in 1940, except that the war was going faster, tanks and planes were going faster than in 1914 and we didn't have the place (think Russia) to slow them down and stop them
The French military is DEFINITELY not a great one, but what can we say about the US military in Pearl Harbor, what can we say about the US in 9/11 ?
The bottom line is that when you're taken by surprise you can do what you want but "the fish smells bad"...
Every historian agrees that if the French army didn't commit suicide in Dunkirk to allow the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) to get back to England (or at least a great part of it) WW2 could have had a VERY different outcome, would the US have "saved the world" if England had fallen in 40 ? Would Russia have been able to stop the Germans if England had fallen ?
Personally and looking at the general mood of US society in these days (racial laws and a generally right wing society) I think we ALL got VERY lucky that
1) The BEF got out enough men to make Hitler think twice about a frontal attack
2) Goring was a joke and the luftwaffe couldn't take out the RAF
3) The war started before the US 1940 elections where FDR was reelected when it seemed at the time it would go the other way around
4)And so on
The bottom line is that France is NOT a belligerent country and when you're surrounded by belligerent countries it's no wonder you lose wars, we don't LIKE war, come on, food and women are more interesting.
On top of this there is NO question that the french military in terms of equipment and leadership is not up to par and that poses the question of whether we NEED an army today, what for ? Who's going to invade us (AGAIN) ?
Maybe the French will allow bloggers to qualify as journalists. Let me rephrase, hopefully France will allow bloggers to qualify as journalists. They can create a system based on posts, RSS feeds, etc., in order to determine qualification. - Ayal Rosenthal
Oh, great. So now, instead of just whoring for Google advertisement clickthrus, we're going to have bloggers whoring their pages so they can avoid going to La Pounde Mi En Du Asse Prison. Brilliant.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
that means you also can't make your own movies? well, I knew the french where screwie, but this is just plain stupid...
The is nothing illegal to film violence unless you are a professional journalist in france actually. The LAW says that you CAN be liable for the same charge that the one who's doing the violence. Because if you can help the victim (as in happy slapping) and stay here filming, then you are guilty too. Please try not to relay wrong informations on slashdot there's many readers, and it's not worth driving the polemics to non existant points.
Sorry for my bad english, it's not my native language.
"We don't care about the brutal, criminal act. We care that any possibility of truth be told, is silenced." - Nicolas Sarkozy
Tells a lot about Sarkozy, doesn't it?
http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/
It's a Bagel.
...for posts as the one above ;)
Seriously, I am tired of hearing of the "Surrendering French", etc.
Still, there is a little more substance to the charge than you let on. The French didn't merely concede defeat (unlike, say, Norway or Poland, who then fought on in exile). France cut a deal with the Germans, and would under the influence of men like Laval move ever closer into the Axis orbit. Hell, the first US ground action in the Western theater wasn't against German troops - it was against the French in North Africa in 1942.
Granted, the British Operation Catapult in 1940 didn't help in this turn of events, but it says something of the contemporary british assessment of French loyalty that they deemed it a necessary step.
US Attorney is a political position, not a professional one.
... The dark night of fascism is always falling on America, but it always seems to land in Europe.
Clinton fired everybody when he came into office.
Ahh fascism
Writing asinine comments online deriding one of the most important advances in journalism since the selectric? The advent of net not only breaks the monopoly of the **aa cartels, but it also breaks the monopoly of the news conglomerates. So who the fuck are you or the French govt to be telling everyone what is or isn't journalism? and who is or isn't a journalist. BTW, some of the discoveries in engineering/mechanics have been accomplished by autodidacts with zero formal educations.
As through the course of history, majority of the french ruling class rules like idiots, getting all the perks of governing, living a life deluxe, suppressing as much as they can suppress, and a small jacoben minority does revolutions from time to time, cutting the elite's heads.
... Fucking scum ...
....
But it is without any debate that for the last 10 years france has been ruled by TOTAL idiots and morons. And here is what their 'constitutional' council says to them, translated into common language : "We want police to beat anyone they need to beat, and we dont want any evidence to be produceable"
What a disgrace for a nation that produced french revolutionaries
Read radical news here
This is just racist crap.
I live in the UK and can assure you that 'Happy Slappers' are almost all indigenous, white trash (or 'chavs' as we call them here). Unfortunately blacks are more likely to just stab you than Happy slap you.
French Constitutional Council = France. Rodney King = Los Angeles, California. It's not necessary to mention Rodney King in the uber-parent, this will only activate flame-wars.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
What the original poster was saying is that Anne Frank wrote those diaries because she was shielded from the Nazi's by people who didn't actually like the Nazis. In France, she wouldn't have gotten that chance because no one would have shielded her.
If someone did this to me, they would be missing their testicles and probably one of their elbows. I guarantee they'd be in the hospital for a month. In the U.S., if you get in people's face, you can be harmed and killed. It is a good way to treat individual interactions.
Maybe they should learn to speak German?! America saved them twice in the last century, but it seems they have learned nothing from us, and none of the lessons about statist governments. Alas, the U.S. seems to be heading down the same path with DMCA, Hate laws, etc. We'll catch up soon, but we'll have to learn Spanish;^)
Zapruder.
I won't even begin to comment on the parent AC's unsubstantiated racial profile of "happy slappers".
Happy slapping is not "a serious problem"; it is a moral panic that has grown up out of alarmist reports in the gutter press.
See these rather more informed articles.
There have been times when a similar differentiation has been applied on US soil.
In the aftermath of the most recent earthquakes in California, no one was allowed
to roam the streets of the damaged areas with the exception of emergency workers
and journalists.
More recently, as a response to potential terrorist threats, the New York transit
authorities attempted to prohibit all photography within the the New York subway
system. Again, journalists were to be excepted. (This idea never became policy
but it illustrates the tendency.)
The question that needs to addressed is what defines a journalist. In my
estimation, a journalist is no different from any other member of the general
public and should not be accorded special privileges. Indeed, I could print
a press card on my laser printer and that would be quite sufficient to establish
my own journalistic credentials. Even attempting to provide a definition for
the journalistic trade invites a measure of tyrannical inclination.
Freedom of speech. Freedom of the press. These is no distinction.
Next question: who isn't an editor?
At the bottom of the
Once again France gives in to Totalitarianism without a fight.
When filming violence is outlawed, only outlaws will film violence.
the motivation for France's opposition to the Iraq war was because their president Chirac was in Saddam's pocket
Simple Answers to Simple Questions.
If you're just looking at Revolutions (Where the French beat the French, and changed the government) you've got them all. If you're looking at attempted revolts/riots, Paris rioted in WWII right as the Germans were invading, and there's also the massvie car-burning riots that occured in 2005 (though that's probably not a true revolt).
Just looking at riots just in Paris we also have 1229, 1720, 1725, 1740, 1743, 1747, 1750, 1752, 1787, 1795, 1870, 1913 and 2006. (Not counting riots already mentioned.) So it looks like Paris has at least one huge riot every 50 years, and typically has one every 20 years.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
While there's plenty of non-lethal alternatives, most of them fall short of firearms in one way or another. Not everyone has the time or physical ability to become an expert in martial arts. Even if they did, if the aggressor has a gun, you're toast. (The example of Alex Gong comes to mind.) Most non-lethal weapons (pepper spray & tasers spring to mind quickly) have much shorter effective range than firearms.
While it would be nice if there was an non-lethal,man-portable weapon with an effective range of 5 feet to a hundred, there really isn't.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
"Yea, let's big up the US who were the ones who were the ones who funded the Nazis with their economic aid to Germany"
The US government provided essentially zero economic aid to Germany after the Nazis came to power. The US still had trade relations with them, but so did France, England, USSR, etc. Germany had far more trade within Europe than outside of Europe.
"as well as being the biggest Nazi appeasers who were willing to surrender the whole of Europe to avoid fighting the fascist regime they built up because they were so afraid of communism."
The US wanted to stay out of European wars in general. Given that we had gone into The Great War with the promise of "fighting to end wars" the cynical political maneuvering and general lack of good will after the war helped to create a climate of isolationism in the US. A lot of people couldn't see how US involvement in Europe had really made the world better, so why not stay out? The countries that were actually _in_ Europe consistently had appeased Germany for many years. Why would the US be more guilty of appeasement than Mexico or Brazil? Perhaps they simply viewed it as not their business.
"Even as Nazi bombs fell on London, US companies still sold arms and machine parts to Germany, and Ford motor company built tanks for Germany."
Control of Fordwerke, the German subsidiary of Ford, had passed to the German Government by WWII. An article at the ADL website, http://www.adl.org/Braun/dim_13_2_ford.asp/, gives a good overview.
"The USA never even declared war on Germany, it was Germany that declared war on the US first."
Interesting but a weak criticism. The US had just been bombed by Japan, declaring war on them was the logical response. Immediately declaring war on Germany would have been...quite odd actually.
"Actually, most of the work to liberate Europe was done by Russia [sic; "USSR"]."
More appropriately, most of the dying to liberate the USSR was done by the USSR, and by then they had the strength to "liberate" _Eastern_Europe_ (rather, annex it; sometimes formally, sometimes not). The reason they had so much ground to recover is that they had to give so much ground to begin with. Most of the Soviet push west was merely making up for the German push east. The Soviet military was an absolute shambles when the Germans attacked. It had lots of equipment, almost _all_ of which was obsolete between one and TEN years before the German invasion of 1941. Stalin's military purges left its military's command largely inexperienced, and it had PITIFUL supplies and military infrastructure. Hitler attacked because the USSR was a vast, soft target. Atlantic and Britain to the west, resources and "Lebensraum" to the east, and easy pickings for the still unstoppable Wehrmacht, if myopic overall.
"Part of the reason why the US joined in the war was not just to defeat Germany, but to make sure it was defeated by the West."
NO! That's inventing the story to fit the evidence, and is patently false. I'm guessing what you mean without realizing it is "part of the reason why the US is GLAD, IN RETROSPECT that it joined the war was to make sure it was defeated by the West." The United States declared war as a direct result of a military attack on its citizens on its territory. Roosevelt et. al. may indeed have desired or accepted what history now views as the "inevitable" participation of the US military, but the United States declared war only on Japan; not on the rest of the "Axis" powers. (Certainly, the must have known the Axis' response.)
"Could the US have accomplished anything without Russia being there? I sincerely doubt it. Could Russia have done it without the US? Very probably"
It is almost certainly the opposite of your misconception. The US military was also relatively small and ill-equipped through 1941, but not so chronically bad as that of the USSR. Most importantly, the US economy was BY FAR the largest in the world: in 1939, before war ravaged the other Powers' economies, the United states possessed more than 40% of the total warmaking capacity in THE ENTIRE world (manufacturing, labor force, materials, etc.). By comparison, Germany and the USSR each had about 14%, with the slight advantage to Germany even BEFORE sweeping up ALL of Western and Central Europe AND plunging all the way to Moscow. It is very viable academically to dispute whether the Soviet advance would have continued without a Western front. Stalin desparately and vehemently wanted that second front, and neither Churchill nor Roosevelt were keen on spending their nations' lives unless absolutely necessary.
"But back to the comparison of the US and the UK. Could the US have staged an invasion like Normandy without England as a jumping-off point? I have my doubts."
That's a non sequitur. Why would they have needed to do that if your thesis of Soviet liberation of Western Europe is valid? The war in Europe would have been over.
I'm sorry, but your post lists many incorrect assumptions, and if I'm not charitable it also shows your own (possibly unwitting) prejudices. You're right about WW2 being more complicated than the US versus Germany, though.
All of this is true! Especially the part about Glasgow knowing how to protect their own.
So submit your video evidence of the piggers beating someone to a reporter anonymously. How can anyone seriously act like their rights are being infringed because of this. Clearly they are trying to figure out a way to counteract all the genetic mutants who use technology for evil purposes.
Like that idiot U.S. kid in jail right now who sold his video footage of the rioting and car burnings for money and showed it to the public on his site to propel his beliefs, but when the cops wanted the video as evidence to convict people doing fucked up shit, he suddenly cries his rights are being stomped on and refuses to do it. How can such a biased person claim to be a reporter? In fact he knew most of the people on the tape involved in illegal acts, hence the REAL reason he refuses. This is the kinda of thing the French law is trying to address. Dealing with the scumbags that seem to be multiplying at an exponential rate. And everyone here knows it.
Who defines what is violent?
Who defines what is acceptable?
What will this do to French cinema, films like "Banlieu 13"?
That is just insane.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Nicolas Sarkozy is a moron quick to react to anything. This law is yet another case where this man shows he can't really think out of the box and is only overreacting. Many of those laws have been amended or rejected. This will be one more like this.
Nothing to worry about.
Discuss.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
1) Rodney King was speeding. According to the cops, he was doing over 115mph in a Hyundai Excel. Oh, wait -- the Hyundai can't do 115mph. It can't even do 100mph. A cop lie. 2) Rodney King was probably high on PCP. Nope, the cops said so, but King subsequently tested negative for PCP. 3) Resisted arrest. They swarmed him -- without provocation, merely because he was a big scary black guy acting oddly but not violently -- and tased him twice, then accused him of resisting arrest because he stood up _after_ that. 4) Had to be beaten into submission: In the opinion of the cops, anyway. Then they held the officers' trial in copland, which explains the verdict.
If I recall correctly Rodney King didn't testify in the first trial. That put the jury in a very awkward position. Usually some-one who has been beaten up testifies against their assailents. So the jurors knew that they were not getting the whole story. I wasn't surprised that they bottled out of declaring the case proven beyond reasonable doubt.
He lost weight and cleaned up his act for the second trial. He testified and got a different outcome. I found it unsurprising that the testimony of the victim affects the outcome of a trial.
The law makes exceptions for those reporting on violence and those documenting the violence with the intent of using it as evidence against the perpetrators.
this law will not apply
lorsque l'enregistrement ou la diffusion résulte de l'exercice normal'd'une profession ayant pour objet d'informer le public ou est réalisé afin de servir de preuve en justice
"when the recording or the diffusion results from the normal exercise of a profession devoted to inform the public or is carried out in order to be used as proof in justice"
This story has probably been spun by independent journalists and bloggers--who are not actually threatened by this law, but are concerned (reasonbly, I think) that it could lead to more internet censorship.
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that a) a joke needs a punchline and b) it was a joke. Now go and watch a movie about how Matt Damon was single-handedly responsible for the Dunkirk rescue and Liv Tyler's love inspired Tom Cruise to defeat the Luftwaffe. While eating 30 pounds of popcorn.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Since I've now been published on Slashdot and have been read by thousands of people, I'm now a professional journalist. Don't tell me how to do my job..
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.