Slashdot Mirror
French President Proposes Jail For Terrorist Website Visitors
howardd21 writes "French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is only a month away from an election, argued that it is time to treat those who browse extremist websites the same way as those who consume child pornography. 'Anyone who regularly consults Internet sites which promote terror or hatred or violence will be sentenced to prison,' he told a campaign rally in Strasbourg, in eastern France. 'Don't tell me it's not possible. What is possible for pedophiles should be possible for trainee terrorists and their supporters, too.' Is this a good move for security, or just another step towards a totalitarian society that prohibits free expression?"
So do you jail the intelligence agents who monitor said sites?
The French should remind themselves that their motto is Liberté, égalité, fraternité, and that all three bits are important.
Presidential elections are just one month from now. He just wants to glean some votes from the far-right voters
...the summary said so, he's only about a month away from the elections. That's just an easy way to get people to remember your name.
What he proposed isn't going to happen of course.
this is the kind of warped perspective that makes no sense to me
so much venom for the west
what do you think of guys who hold the hair of eight year old girls and execute them?
i'm not supporting this ridiculous visit-a-website,go-to-jail law. it's stupid
i'm taking a stand against the warped perspective that: the west does something you dislike, so you support something far worse
you do realize it's possible to be disgusted by BOTH islamic radicalization and censorial overreach, right?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Such a law would be a joy for military recruiters. Click the links below to be put onto a French terrorist watch list!
Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines!
Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines!
I suppose the French President meant violence he does not agree with should be prosecuted. That makes more sense.
I wonder if we should jail those who think about visiting said sites? That would be a crime too, if I'm not mistaken.
It would be even easier to just recognize that importing large numbers of foreigners who don't share your country's values, and who have a history of having a minority who advocate making open war on your society, was a huge mistake for the Western nations. You could correct that by revoking visas in the hundreds of thousands and sending them back home. But no, you cannot do that. That would be "hateful" even though it would be an even greater violation of the human dignity of those people, to say nothing of your citizens, to subject them to a police state because you don't want to accept the fact that there is a constant, indefatigable minority who not only cannot integrate but are violently opposed to Western values. When I say "violently" I mean in the sense of willing to actually use real force, not the sort of pissant, isolated incidents associated with native conservative Christians and Jews once in a blue moon.
Now all of you who have read this post, give yourselves up at the nearest police, s'il vous plais.
Including Inspire magazine (Al Qaeda's English-language publication), the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups, and sites sympathetic to the Oklahoma city bombing.
I want to understand what motivates these people; I want to think about what sort of public policy creates the most freedom, prosperity, safety; I want to understand the enemy and figure out why they're the enemy in the first place.
So I guess I'd be put in jail for this if I lived in France. Is Sarkozy saying that only politicians are able to reason about such things? Hell of a job they've done so far.
Just because you and a bunch of English/American people hate France doesn't mean everybody hates France. The guy who carried the attacks was pretty much targeting the Western world in any case, and in the case of Sarkozy, he's very afraid of losing the elections since the leftist candidate is going to win so he has started making crazy and racist comments.
This is a law-project tailored specifically to address the crazy killer that shot 7 people recently in France.
The presidential election is less than 1 month away and no more laws would be discussed or voted in the mean time. So this law would never pass.
The killer was under scrutiny since his return from Afghanistan. Since he hasn't done anything in France, he could be arrested and jailed. They weren't able to detect any suspicious behavior like planning to plant a bomb which is the most common terrorist act in Europe. We have very few gun-related deaths compared to the US, so such a killing spree is very unusual. This is the most obvious reason his planning went undetected.
The point of this stupid law is to give an excuse for the Police to arrest and jail anyone with a slight hint of suspect behavior, before they might be planning to commit actual crime.
As usual, this is stupid and inefficient.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
"they also demand French people to adapt to Muslim costumes."
Aha! I think I finally understand why they banned head scarves, then.
...to rickrolling - or call it terrortrolling. Just set up a few fake links for your gullible frenemies, and get them the dawn knock on the door.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
"The fourth victim was Myriam Monsonego, seven, daughter of the head teacher, who was reportedly grabbed by the hair and shot in the head."
From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17428860
Is that good enough for you? Cunt.
Everyone hates France?
Maybe in America, but who cares about what America thinks of an EU country?
The problem here is Sarkozy not France in its entirety.
Jailing someone for familiarising themselves with a subject is wrong...
Guides on how to commit acts of terrorism could be perceived as interesting, and are useful reading for someone working on the other side of the fence looking to prevent, deter or even just detect such acts... In fact this is a common problem, those looking to prevent a given activity simply don't understand how those who want to carry out such activities think... Wether it's hacking, burgling, terrorism, piracy etc, and you end up with wholly ineffective measures that look really fancy but are easily circumvented by those who are serious about doing it, while providing significant disruption for innocent civilians.
There seems to be a generally flawed mindset out there that concentrates on big fancy front gates, while totally forgetting about the rotten wooden door at the back.
Personally i think the more people understand about how terrorists think, the greater the chance of their activities being discovered and stopped. Imagine you live next door to someone who keeps bringing bags of fertiliser into their house, are they a keen gardened or can fertiliser be used to make bombs? Have you seen any evidence of well cultivated plants in their back garden? Can you smell canabis coming from their roof space? Or can you smell other chemicals you've read about in the jolly roger's cookbook?
Child porn is entirely different, most people simply won't want to look at it, even if they should stumble across it accidentally.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
doesn't matter. If elections are in just one month, he doesn't need to get this law passed, he doesn't even need to actually flesh out the details of the law, he's just making noise.
And he (probably rightly) assumes that his target audience assumes that muslim and terrorist are synonyms and their favorite websites would not be counted.
Not every wine soaked douchebag is French, you insensitive clod!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Since when do laws apply to those that make them?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
May be worth mentioning the guy who killed 70+ people in Sweden was snow white and claimed to be Christian. Look that fact up too.
If you think nation states cannot trade, communicate freely and all of that without going to war or having ethnically "diverse" societies, you are sadly mistaken. The reason diversity is a problem is that without common, shared values and culture you have a limited shared social fabric for how to form a government, regulate public and private dealings and host of other things which bind society together.
Shared ethnicity is very important and ethnicity transcends race. It's possible for a black and white man to have the same ethnicity; it's possible to have two blacks and two whites each be of different ethnicities. What matters most is having the mostly ethnically homogenous society you can while not tying ethnicity to race. At least in America, we've done a good job of separating race and ethnicity. You frequently now see whites and blacks treat each other as fellow citizens while both being suspicious of illegal immigrants as they're not from the same larger group as we are.
That was in Norway, though your point is still valid.
that's insane
we're not talking about fashion or music choice
if enough pakistanis tell you this is ok, its ok by you?:
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/03/22/202385.html
cannibalism was once ok in certain parts of the world. its about evolving away from bad practices to better ones
you may say i have an absolutist position, but it is you who has the absolutist position: that culture's mores never change, and are unquestionable
i object as a human being to your relativity, an excuse to justify atrocities. nationalism and religion do not excuse gross violations of simple human rights
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it