Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Xoon

United States Gun Control Megathread

Recommended Posts

Why would parents be letting their children read Marine La Pen's Twitter account.....This is the very definition of a pernicious, nonsensical, and clearly politically motivated prosecution IMHO (admittedly without looking at all the facts).

 

And yet Europe still wonders 'Why Brexit?', apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

She broke the law (as usual one might say).

And most likely she did it knowingly (or for her partisan I hope since, she didn't shown much intelligence during the presidential debate) so she can tell she is the victim of some sort of vendetta (orchestrated by the media ofc) against her.

You have know idea how corrupt is her party^^

 

Yeah my point is you guys effectively have no right to free speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI000023711920&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719

 

Basically she had every right to respond to the journalist that made a parallel between her party and ISIS, which even if the FN is trash level far right xenophobic party with history of holocaust denial (which is also punishable by the law and her father have been found guilty countless time for it) they're not ISIS level.

 

The problem is that she put gore image of ISIS degrading human beings (Syrian soldier run over by a tank, a Jordanian pilot burned alive,  an American journalist with his severed head put on display over his own body) on public display and basically this law is here to protect minors from seeing it.

 

She could just had said that ISIS do that kind of thing and that indeed her party cannot be compared to them and that would had been fine.

We know ISIS are barbarians, no need to put their work on display.

 

Such freedom, very wow. Do they let you out of your cages on the weekend, or is that just on special occasions?

 

(I'm just teasing!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sturgeon said:

 

Yeah my point is you guys effectively have no right to free speech.

 

We do, simply don't have to be vulgar doing so just for the sake of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who quantifies 'Vulgar' and when?  The party in power?  When it's convenient?  What?

 

This is almost as stupid as the ban on the swastika (Which costs me money every time I decide to model something German).....It's utterly puerile (doubly so when you look at who exactly it was that came up with the concept of 'Europe' in the first place).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

We do, simply don't have to be vulgar doing so just for the sake of it.

 

Sounds like she was trying to win an argument, not trying to be vulgar.

 

Why would any parent let their kid on social media, anyway?

 

It continually shocks me how other countries are willing to criminally prosecute for shit that's constitutionally protected here. Like the guy in Scotland who went to jail for teaching a dog the Hitler salute as a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

 

That sounds like a fine prompt for a new thread, because I have literally no idea.

 

Basically they steal public money at every level possible.

 

Like creating shelf company to sell overpriced campaign material to their candidates during elections, they then pass it as a campaign expense to get reimbursed by the State.

Then they just terminate the shelf company and get double the money.

 

Or declaring assistant at the European parliament but said assistant never show up to work and their salary get reinjected in the party instead.

 

The whole Le Pen family (Jean-Marie, Marine, Marion-Maréchal) is basically a bunch of thief who maid stealing public money a profession (on top of broking the law on discriminations, holocaust denial, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like this arrest was clearly politically motivated. Regardless of who La Pen is, that's bad.

 

If only there were some sort of law that protected political opposition from spurious charges like this... But then it would have to extend to everyone. What country could possibly have something like that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Sounds like she was trying to win an argument, not trying to be vulgar.

 

Why would any parent let their kid on social media, anyway?

 

It continually shocks me how other countries are willing to criminally prosecute for shit that's constitutionally protected here. Like the guy in Scotland who went to jail for teaching a dog the Hitler salute as a joke.

 

Well that's what she was trying to do, and honestly the journalist had no business comparing FN to ISIS (they're both shitty but definitively not on the same level) she could have just sued the guy in defamation, and she most likely would have won.

But not she had to use degrading violent images just for the sake or creating a bad buzz, and then try to put herself in  the position of the victim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

Well that's what she was trying to do, and honestly the journalist had no business comparing FN to ISIS (they're both shitty but definitively not on the same level) she could have just sued the guy in defamation, and she most likely would have won.

But not she had to use degrading violent images just for the sake or creating a bad buzz, and then try to put herself in  the position of the victim.

 

You seem to be missing the fact that your government is quashing political opposition using spurious laws. That's the very definition of "not having freedom of speech". So you have that freedom in name only. As long as nobody gets offended and it isn't considered "indecent", you're fine. Which is another way of saying "keep your head down, don't attract attention."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

It sounds like this arrest was clearly politically motivated. Regardless of who La Pen is, that's bad.

 

If only there were some sort of law that protected political opposition from spurious charges like this... But then it would have to extend to everyone. What country could possibly have something like that!

 

Well the minister of the interior (who is politically opposed to here party) did brought the images to the judge.

But then the judge alone decided whether or not diffusing said images was illegal or not, in complete autonomy.

 

Any citizen could have sued her for that.

And the only reason it took so long for here to be found guilty (the facts date all the way back to 2015) is because she had immunity since she was elected at the parliament.

So for justice to press forward the parliament had first to vote to lift her immunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

Well the minister of the interior (who is politically opposed to here party) did brought the images to the judge.

But then the judge alone decided whether or not diffusing said images was illegal or not, in complete autonomy.

 

Any citizen could have sued her for that.

And the only reason it took so long for here to be found guilty (the facts date all the way back to 2015) is because the had immunity since she was elected at the parliament.

So for justice to press forward the parliament had first to vote to lift her immunity.

 

Whyyyyyy are your laws like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Like the guy in Scotland who went to jail for teaching a dog the Hitler salute as a joke.

 

WTF? 

 

After checking up on this rather amusing story, I don't think there's been a verdict yet.....Hard to see how he could be found guilty given his preface to the video:

 

Quote

Meechan prefaces the video “Nazi Pug” by stating this was a prank intended to annoy his girlfriend by turning her cute and adorable little pug into the “least cute thing” he could think of, and that was a Nazi. The video is puerile, but the repetition of this horrifying phrase and Buddha’s excitement at hearing it, taken with the sight of the podgy little pooch standing at a desk appearing to watch Hitler address a Nuremberg rally, is

comical. It did make me laugh.

 

It made me laugh too.

 

https://randompublicjournal.com/2018/01/12/mark-meechan-fighting-for-free-speech-in-scotland/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

You seem to be missing the fact that your government is quashing political opposition using spurious laws. That's the very definition of "not having freedom of speech". So you have that freedom in name only. As long as nobody gets offended and it isn't considered "indecent", you're fine. Which is another way of saying "keep your head down, don't attract attention."

 

I think I'm having a hard time explaining myself.

She wasn't sentenced for what she said, rather for the way she did.

 

Freedom of speech is a basic right, but you can't use as an excuse to profess insanity so there are indeed limits (and said limits are built within the law which have been voted by the representatives of the Nation)

 

Limits are:

 

  • Do not attempt to the private life or the right to image of an individual
  • Do not say anything that is strictly forbidden by the law (Incitations to racial/ethnic/religious hate, apology of war crimes or terrorism, discrimination based on sexual orientation or handicap, incitations to use drugs, denial of holocaust and others)
  • No defamation (unless you bring proof of your allegations, exception with private life see above)
  • Do not insult peoples for the sake of it (i.e without bringing any facts)
  • Professional secret, Military secrets,  business secrets
  • Devoir de réserve: Basically if you are a State employee or part of the military you're not supposed to try to influence political opinions, you're here to serve the Nation regardless of who runs it (in private they can do whatever they want ofc, but not when at the job)

 

If you think somebody broke the rules, you can sue them.

Justice, as an independent power, will decide whether the law have been broken or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

Well the minister of the interior (who is politically opposed to here party) did brought the images to the judge.

 

So it really was politically motivated.

 

But then the judge alone decided whether or not diffusing said images was illegal or not, in complete autonomy.

 

This is irrelevant, the judge didn’t initiate the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

I think I'm having a hard time explaining myself.

She wasn't sentenced for what she said, rather for the way she did.

 

Freedom of speech is a basic right, but you can't use as an excuse to profess insanity so there are indeed limits (and said limits are built within the law which have been voted by the representatives of the Nation)

 

Limits are:

 

  • Do not attempt to the private life or the right to image of an individual
  • Do not say anything that is strictly forbidden by the law (Incitations to racial/ethnic/religious hate, apology of war crimes or terrorism, discrimination based on sexual orientation or handicap, incitations to use drugs, denial of holocaust and others)
  • No defamation (unless you bring proof of your allegations, exception with private life see above)
  • Do not insult peoples for the sake of it (i.e without bringing any facts)
  • Professional secret, Military secrets,  business secrets
  • Devoir de réserve: Basically if you are a State employee or part of the military you're not supposed to try to influence political opinions, you're here to serve the Nation regardless of who runs it (in private they can do whatever they want ofc, but not when at the job)

 

If you think somebody broke the rules, you can sue them.

Justice, as an independent power, will decide whether the law have been broken or not.

 

Yeah, no you're not understanding me. Let me be more explicit. I looked up your laws before you posted it. Those limits mean you don't have freedom of speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ramlaen said:

 

So it really was politically motivated.

 

This is irrelevant, the judge didn’t initiate the case.

 

The fact that a political opponent brought it to the justice is completely irrelevant.

Anyone else would have done it, the result would have been the same.

 

A citizen brought the thing to justice and the judge, based on the evidence decided that it was enough to open an investigation which led to a trial where she was found guilty.

The judge could have well said that they was no case because there wasn't enough evidences, or that atfer investigation it appeared that said images were not braking the law.

 

All citizens are equals in front of the law.

Period^^

 

It's just like François Fillon (republican right wing candidate for the presidential election) who also stole public money and it was reported by an investigation newspaper.

He then tried to portrait himself as a victim of a cabal orchestrated by the left wing and the media but the thing is we don't care.

 

Justice did her job, investigated and he was found guilty.

The fact that he was running for the presidential election at the time was completely irrelevant. All citizens are equal in front of the law.

Had he won the election he would had have immunity for 5 years (only to be prosecuted at the end of his mandate), but he lost and was found guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sturgeon said:

 

Yeah, no you're not understanding me. Let me be more explicit. I looked it up before you posted it. Those limits mean you don't have freedom of speech.

I liked old norse law. If someone tried to dishonor you, you could challenge them to a fight to the death, if they declined then they get dishonored. If you get dishonored 3 times without acting, you will get punished by law xD

 

Basically any dispute could be solved by holmgang, a sort of battle to the death on a small island.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Wow, no it's not.

 

But it is^^

If you are guilty, you are regardless if you are a politician.

If you happen to be running an election it's your problem, don't commit crimes in the first place.

Society is not responsible for it you are.

 

Or are you telling me that citizens are not equals before the law in the US?

That if you happen to be well known, or a politician you get a free pass to do whatever you want? AFAIK that's not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Yeah, no you're not understanding me. Let me be more explicit. I looked up your laws before you posted it. Those limits mean you don't have freedom of speech.

 

Don't you happen to have more or less the exact same limits to freedom of speech?

 

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

 

Of course freedom of speech is a limited right.

Nowhere in the world will you find a total freedom of speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Nope. Not even close. Our obscenity regulations are extremely dilute.

 

And that's to society to decide what is acceptable or not, and we do it democratically through our representatives at the parliament and the senate.

Just the exact same way that the American society refuse to put limitations on the 2nd amendment.

 

The more I learn about the US laws, the more I have the impression that you guys lives in generalized irresponsibility.

 

You want to have unlimited rights without the inherent and proportional responsibility that goes with it.

 

On a side note, we don't tend to go to court over every single little thing like in the US.

If something is considered obscene it had to be pretty fucked up regarding the level of tolerance of the society.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

The fact that a political opponent brought it to the justice is completely irrelevant.

 

Its extremely relevant considering

 

Anyone else would have done it, the result would have been the same.

 

no one cared until a person with a political motivation made an issue of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×