Charlie Hebdo reaction
 

At last, I've seen an article that to me talks common sense amongst all the recent reporting about press freedom regarding Charlie Hebdo, whether in the British, French or Spanish press.

What 'free speech' didn’t tell us about Charlie Hebdo jokes - Telegraph

How far should a "free press" be allowed to go?
Should there be limits to press "freedom; problem being who is in control of judging what's allowed?

Violence should be condemned, of course, especially the gratuitous violence perpetrated in Paris.

I was heartened by one of the readings in church today, which, by coincidence was taken from 1 Corinthians 6: "Everything is permissible for me, but not everything is beneficial".
For me it beautifully sums up the recent events.

Re: Charlie Hebdo reaction
 

Christopher Booker :( all I can say is LOL

Re: Charlie Hebdo reaction
 

For me, it's pretty simple:

1. The press shouldn't be allowed to lie when presenting "news" as "facts". They have to back up their claims with supporting facts.

2. In matters of opinions, satire and comedy; it needs to be stated that it's an opinion, and any >facts< cited can't be blatant lies.

but we already have laws covering these things. Besides, if I publish an article proclaiming you to be a child-molester, you can sue me for liable (presuming you aren't one).

With respect to the Prophet Mohammed, depiction does not fall foul of any of the above. It may be offensive to Muslims, but there is no law requiring them to look at it.

And frankly, I'm also offended when people leave their dog shit in the street. The difference is that I don't go around killing everyone that has a dog.

Re: Charlie Hebdo reaction
 

Yeah, I tend not to read Christopher Booker much, but I reckon he got it right this time.

Re: Charlie Hebdo reaction
 

Amideislas,
Interesting, In Italy if you publicly call a child molester just that, you can be sued for defamation.
It was a case on Forum on Monday. Is Spain the same?

Re: Charlie Hebdo reaction
 

Brain Scans to be introduced at airports along with lie detectors and faeces/urine analysers. All part of the new recommendations for improved security in the West. People are requested to check in 12 hours before flights in order to allow the necessary checks. No checks will continue to be the order of the day on Illegals entering Italy by boats, no documents are required and immigrants will receive board and lodging along with free sim cards before being allowed to freely roam the Schengen area.

Re: Charlie Hebdo reaction
 

Not sure, but I don't think so. My first reaction to your example (as stated) sounds like another OTT ridiculous law that serves no practical purpose, most likely to satisfy some special interest group.

In most countries, you can sue for most anything - but it comes down to the court (and whether they'll even allow the case to proceed).

If you publicly accuse a convicted child molester of being a child molester, then I'd expect it to be pretty difficult for the court to rightly justify awarding damages for defamation (unless of course there's some miscarriage of justice at work). Besides, under that same law (as you stated it), I'd have to believe child molesters could sue the state for defamation when convicted of that crime. After all, a conviction is a matter of public record.

I heard about a somewhat similar law in the US - that a bloke having a wee in the forest could be arrested and convicted of sex offences. After a bit of research, I found that it's technically true in some states, but for all but very specific situations where sex offences were actually committed in the process, it's completely unenforceable. Another example of making laws that have no practical purpose, to satisfy the whims of some special interest group.

Re: Charlie Hebdo reaction
 

:confused:

Re: Charlie Hebdo reaction
 

The case in question regarded a women with some psychological problems.
Under analysis it came out that she had been sexually abused between the ages of 4 to 8 years old by her elder brother, the behaviour of the elder brother was confirmed by another brother. The woman in question called her brother a paedophile both to his and his wifes' face. the wifes' request for damages was met in the sum of 1000 Euros against the abused sister.
The judge stated that even though it was true she could not go around saying this.
This was not the first time that I had heard of this in Italy.

Re: Charlie Hebdo reaction
 

Glib PNR proposal pi·$ take!!
Italy does not want Border checks reintroduced, I wonder why?;)

Re: Charlie Hebdo reaction
 

I suppose that this elder brother was not a convicted paedophile?

Re: Charlie Hebdo reaction
 

Charlie Hebdo reaction?

I seen in The Independent newspaper of 17-01-2015 , an article which referred to the turnout of world leaders, following the events in Paris, as being counter productive and somewhat at odds with their reaction, or lack of it, to the murder of almost 2000 Nigerians, that took place a short while before. It was pointed out that such an action could have a disproportionate effect on future attacks in the west.

Re: Charlie Hebdo reaction
 

True there wasn't a conviction in this case, in the other case there was but it appears that even then you can't go around saying that a guy is a thief etc even though convicted..