There's a very easy solution to the "peace sign dilemma". Just turn your hand around when you make a peace sign, with a slight upwards movement. No problems with fingerprints, and they'll get the message.
As has been pointed out, "free speech" in the US doesn't include libel, fraud, incitement to commit violence, or as the Supreme Court has ruled, the right to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. So even in the US, there are some restrictions. The restrictions in France are different that the US restrictions.
French law looks at speech differently depending on what it's aimed at. In the case of Dieudonné (the so-called "comedian"), his speech was ruled as against the law because it was aimed at individuals (somewhat similar to the idea behind libel laws), not at an organization, a religion or any other organized group or company. For the most part, speech that doesn't concern individuals, or specific groups of people (as people) falls under free speech. But anything aimed at individuals or groups of individuals can fall foul of hate speech crimes. So you can say anything you want about any religion or company (as long as it's not libelous) etc. but you can't say the same thing about individuals in those organizations.
I'm not saying that I personally agree with the French approach to "free speech" (even though I live there), I tend to agree with a more American viewpoint, that free speech isn't free unless the most odious speech can be defended. But even under the US system, there are nonetheless imposed restrictions.They're just different than the French restrictions.
Each version has cultural and historical reasons for their different interpretations (and they are interpretations), and taking them out of context can only lead to a conversation of the deaf.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Bruce B.
There's a very easy solution to the "peace sign dilemma". Just turn your hand around when you make a peace sign, with a slight upwards movement. No problems with fingerprints, and they'll get the message.
"Free speech" doesn't mean the same thing everywhere
As has been pointed out, "free speech" in the US doesn't include libel, fraud, incitement to commit violence, or as the Supreme Court has ruled, the right to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. So even in the US, there are some restrictions. The restrictions in France are different that the US restrictions.
French law looks at speech differently depending on what it's aimed at. In the case of Dieudonné (the so-called "comedian"), his speech was ruled as against the law because it was aimed at individuals (somewhat similar to the idea behind libel laws), not at an organization, a religion or any other organized group or company. For the most part, speech that doesn't concern individuals, or specific groups of people (as people) falls under free speech. But anything aimed at individuals or groups of individuals can fall foul of hate speech crimes. So you can say anything you want about any religion or company (as long as it's not libelous) etc. but you can't say the same thing about individuals in those organizations.
I'm not saying that I personally agree with the French approach to "free speech" (even though I live there), I tend to agree with a more American viewpoint, that free speech isn't free unless the most odious speech can be defended. But even under the US system, there are nonetheless imposed restrictions.They're just different than the French restrictions.
Each version has cultural and historical reasons for their different interpretations (and they are interpretations), and taking them out of context can only lead to a conversation of the deaf.