As those of us who understand and
value free speech ,not only as protection from government but as a personal moral code, watch the recent events we must be clear that France currently has a hypocritical law in which people can be banned, fined and jailed for so called "anti-semetic" speech. There is no way that French leaders can talk about free speech which such laws are on the books and used against members of society.
A top court in France has upheld the ban on a performance by the controversial comic Dieudonne M’bala M’bala, a move the government has hailed as a “victory” over anti-Semitism.
The decision comes less than two hours before the comedian was due to give the opening performance of his national tour in the western city of Nantes, despite his lawyers claiming a breach of his freedom of expression.
The ban had been lifted only yesterday by local judge Jean-Francois Molla who said that a perceived risk to public order could not be used to “justify as radical measure as banning the show”. However, France’s highest administrative court, the Council of State, ruled that the show should be allowed to go ahead.
Interior Minister Manuel Valls, who has led the campaign to ban the comedian’s performances, said: "We cannot tolerate hatred of others, racism, anti-Semitism or holocaust denial. That is not France. This is a victory for the Republic.” [My underlines]
Yes we can indeed tolerate hatred of others. People are
free to like, dislike, hate whatever moves them to such feelings. It is
NOT the business of the state to dictate what people may
think. The state may ONLY interfere when that person's
actions infringe on the rights of others (murder, harassment, job discrimination, etc.)
This is why such freedom to speak, which is essentially the freedom to
think is coupled with the freedom to associate or not associate. If I find someone's belief system offensive I am, and should continue to be, free to not associate with that person. Similarly that person who wishes to NOT associate with me should be free to not be made to do so. This is the essence of freedom.
Jean-Francois Molla got it right when he said:
that a perceived risk to public order could not be used to “justify as radical measure as banning the show”.
Jean-Francois understands that the onus of PROPER behavior lies on the person who may be offended. In a
civilized society a person who is offended by certain speech, calls that person (or group) some not so nice names, and moves along. They avoid that person (freedom to not associate) and therefore do not have to come into contact with said offensive speech or person.
Whenever people use the excuse that certain groups may be offended and may resort to violence, they are in essence handing over their rights to the mob. They are living in a state of fear. They are, in essence, cowards because they fear facing the violent person AND are afraid to enforce the law against those who would commit violence to further their aims.
