Visit a hate speech site and Sarkozy will throw you into jail.......

[hardcore_gamer]

......if he has his way.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46822409/ns/technology_and_science-security/#.T2yikPm2XG9

Jesus Christ.

The idea behind hate speech laws are already stupid to begin with, but if this happens then I will bang my head up against the wall. I don't live in France, but if this happens then the idiots in my country might start to consider adopting this idea here as well.

Thoughts?

[Gez]

Terrorism, pedophile pornography, and so-called software piracy are the three convenient scapegoats to justify anything you want in matters of censorship and surveillance. Personal rights are the enemy.

[kristus]

Basically, he's now running errands for the kind of terrorists he tries to stop.

[dew]

imagine being able to send any french person to prison by luring them into clicking a bit.ly link...

[hardcore_gamer]

dew said:

imagine being able to send any french person to prison by luring them into clicking a bit.ly link...

I would laugh so hard if someone were to lure Sarkozy himself into a hate site.

"ops! uhhhhh.....I promise that won't happen again!".

[printz]

White power supremacists are a plague on our society, but trying to prosecute people who visit such sites is retarded. More logical would be to use the law against racism (if it exists in France) to hunt down owners of French extremist sites, and have other websites ban such user comments.

[Doom_Dude]

hardcore_gamer said:

I would laugh so hard if someone were to lure Sarkozy himself into a hate site.

"ops! uhhhhh.....I promise that won't happen again!".

Haha, that's what I was just thinking.

[Gez]

printz said:

White power supremacists are a plague on our society, but trying to prosecute people who visit such sites is retarded.

Just so you know, this was triggered by the whole Mohammed Merah thing.

Well, technically Arabs are white people, but the white power guys are kinda picky.

(In any case, this is all a big bunch of bullshit.)

[negke]

Sadly, it's quite natural that in the wake of any kind of disaster there are outcrys for more rigorous laws, increased surveilance measures, harder penalties, and so on. Even more so in times of election campaigns. Public figures, politicians in particular, are then quick to jump on the populism bandwagon and outdo each other with such premature statements and suggestions. Fortunately (or hopefully), in many cases the measures they try to polarize with will be dropped after a while when everyone has calmed down again.

[Krispy]

My favorite comment- "1984: Thought Crime."

[Kira]

It's what we call here an "effet d'annonce". It's just story-telling to let us think he is doing something while situation remains essentially the same.

Yet Sarkozy works hard since years to lock the internet here. Remember that SOPA/PIPA shit? Well, we are a testing ground.

[Jodwin]

So it's "tough shit" if you happen to be a researcher from academia doing legitimate research on hate speech?

Awesome. [/sarc]

[Technician]

I dare you to read some of the comments left on that article. The world is full of scared, stupid people.

[Snakes]

Technician said:

I dare you to read some of the comments left on that article. The world is full of scared, stupid people.

You seem to be reading the comments on these types of articles a lot lately. People who leave comments at news websites tend to be caricatures of extreme proportions. Even newspapers' websites attract the biggest idiots you can find.

It'd be interesting to know if a correlation between the intelligence of one who reads a news article and one who leaves comments, because the idea that those who read the news are more informed seems fairly debunked, ATM.

[Jodwin]

Snakes said:

You seem to be reading the comments on these types of articles a lot lately. People who leave comments at news websites tend to be caricatures of extreme proportions. Even newspapers' websites attract the biggest idiots you can find.

Earlier this week a Finnish tabloid had a poll on its website whether our current minister of defence should withdraw or not. 90 % said that yes, he should withdraw his position. Then a television channel did a phone poll on the same subject. As a result, only 54 % of people said that he should withdraw.

Ah, the joys of anonymous online polls.

[Gez]

Snakes said:

the idea that those who read the news are more informed seems fairly debunked, ATM.

The press is increasingly partisan. There are right-wing news and left-wing news, and there's no unbiased, neutral middle-ground. The media that claim to be without bias are the worst offenders in that category ("fair & balanced", lol).

So, people aren't more informed because they follow the news. They follow the news they want to follow, and get to hear what they want to hear. It's an echo chamber for their own vacuity, rather than actual information.

A big part of the reason why is because they are funded by advertising, and advertisers want the population they reach to be as large as possible and as credulous and suggestible as possible. So the media target morons with strong opinions and little capacity for critical analysis.

[GreyGhost]

Does that mean Conservative's Forum will soon be off-limits?

[Technician]

GreyGhost said:

Does that mean Conservative's Forum will soon be off-limits?

"George Zimmerman is HALF HISPANIC" First fucking topic. No surprise.

Yeah, becasue a full white would never shoot a black kid.

[DoomUK]

Jodwin said:

So it's "tough shit" if you happen to be a researcher from academia doing legitimate research on hate speech?

Awesome. [/sarc]

Furthermore, what happens when someone accidentally navigates their browser to one of those sites? Jailed for clicking on a link by mistake?

[Kira]

So, I said it was storytelling... Actually the government is trying to pass the law with force even if the Senate and National Assembly aren't supposed to work during our presidential election.

BTW, did you know we are the first country to adopt a biometric database of every citizen since a few weeks?

[GreyGhost]

DoomUK said:

Furthermore, what happens when someone accidentally navigates their browser to one of those sites? Jailed for clicking on a link by mistake?

Come to think of it, this site could do with a bit of a cleanup -

Which monster in Doom II(edit) do you hate most?

Why the hate on Steam?

I hate it when people credit Petersen for Hall's maps

I hate grades

What Doom monster do you hate!

Things I hate about secrets

I hate dial-up!

Doom, and what I hate about it

That's a small sample of the pent-up hatred on these forums which goes back to 2001 if not earlier. It's a deplorable situation that must be rectified without delay, otherwise this venerable institution and it's membership risk being associated with society's pariahs - jihadis, white supremacists, ultra-nationalists, soccer hooligans, Duke Nukem Forever fanboys and that creepy guy down the street who's poisoned half the neighborhood cats but no-one can prove it.

Fortunately, there's a (hopefully) simple solution to our problem - persuade an Admin to do a global search and replace of the forum database, replacing "hate" with "love". With a similar macro in place to filter new posts I think it should be possible to keep Doomworld off Sarkozy's hate hit list.

[Aliotroph?]

We'll be fine. Sarkozy probably only recognizes the existence of sites written in French.

[hardcore_gamer]

Aliotroph? said:

We'll be fine.

Until our own governments decide to adopt this nonsense as well.

[Aliotroph?]

Then we'll just auto-translate the whole site into Swahili and no other Americans will know it exists.

[Maes]

Snakes said:

People who leave comments at news websites tend to be caricatures of extreme proportions.

Poe's law states that you can't really tell if they are faking it or being dead-serious about it, without any other clue.

And then again I would have some doubts: e.g. "I believe every gypsie's testicles should be smashed between two bricks" vs "I believe every gypsie's testicles should be smashed between two bricks ;-)". Would there be any difference at all if the first phrase was said by an adamant racist, and the second one by someone wanting to mock said attitudes? Would the smiley alone make it more "acceptable"? What if it was the other way around (the "real" racist adds the smiley, the "mocking" one doesn't).

[Marcaek]

Aliotroph? said:

Then we'll just auto-translate the whole site into Swahili and no other Americans will know it exists.

Swahili? Sounds like a terrorist language ban ban BAN

[printz]

hardcore_gamer said:

Until our own governments decide to adopt this nonsense as well.

Sounds too sudden and unrealistic. I'd expect more steady measures against terrorism than directly jailing every passer-by who opens bad websites by curiosity. Plus Sarkozy seems just like the kind of dude to say bombastic bullshit.

[Retog]

printz said:

White power supremacists are a plague on our society, but trying to prosecute people who visit such sites is retarded. More logical would be to use the law against racism (if it exists in France) to hunt down owners of French extremist sites, and have other websites ban such user comments.

Your right. The people who create the racist sites should be thrown in prison, not the people who visit the site. I might decide to visit a racist site to troll it, even though i'm not a racist I would still be prosecuted under that law.

[Maes]

Retog said:

I might decide to visit a racist site to troll it, even though i'm not a racist I would still be prosecuted under that law.

Sound like Poe's Law can be reversed, since there's no way to tell real supporters from trolls (and even real supporters can claim that they were expressing extremist views just "for fun" or "for mockery", a-posteriori. Again, there would be no way to really tell one from the other without some other discriminating element).

E.g. if I go to a racist website and post "I think gypsies should have their testicles smashed between two bricks and then thrown into an oven to make raw materials for Germany's factories", and Sarkozy's internet police catches me, I could say I was mocking the racists with a deliberately over-the-top proposal, only to see how many would actually take it seriously... but would it really be over-the-top in this context? Who sets the limit? What level of racism is "too much" even for a "real" racist?

[printz]

Maes said:

E.g. if I go to a racist website and post "I think gypsies should have their testicles smashed between two bricks and then thrown into an oven to make raw materials for Germany's factories", and Sarkozy's internet police catches me, I could say I was mocking the racists with a deliberately over-the-top proposal, only to see how many would actually take it seriously... but would it really be over-the-top in this context? Who sets the limit? What level of racism is "too much" even for a "real" racist?

Don't bother, I don't think attorneys care for sarcasm. Also I hope you were not sincere because that's one of the most trite things to be posted on this forum. Leave it with your real-life buddies; the Doomworld mods and admins may not be impressed and may take it as an offence worse than in your context.