French Official Faces Jail For Homophobic Remarks

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon05/12/121505france.htm

The first person to be prosecuted under France's year-old law against homophobic speech is a member of Parliament.

Christian Vanneste, a member of the ruling UMP party, faces jail and a fine after being convicted this week.

Vanneste made a series of anti-gay speeches in Parliament. In one he called gays a "threat to humanity".

His speeches, in the lower house, are protected by parliamentary privilege but Vanneste then repeated the remarks in interviews with two newspapers which printed them.

Can't forgive his homophobic remarks but it's disgusting that anyone could be imprisoned over speech.

Not familiar with french law, can anyone enlighten me on their equivalent of the first ammendment? Thanks.

I have a short list of quotes on my wall right next to my computer. One of them is this:

"You will do me the justice to remember that I have always supported the right of every man to his opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right makes a slave of himself to present opinion because he precludes himself the right of changing it. The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall." - Thomas Paine

I certainly don't agree with his remarks, but I have always supported the right for everyone to speak their mind. Having laws against certain forms of speech always seems appealing, until you realize that the goal you wish to accomplish, to make the world better, cannot be accomplished unless you engage those who disagree with you in debate.

This is just one of many. The French understanding of what the bounds of free speech are differ from the American understanding. He's a high-ranking public official, so I find it very hard to believe that he's some sort of ignorant person just spouting off at the mouth.

I'm not saying I support these restrictions, but 1) I hate homophobes; and 2) there are other more pressing priorities to address.

I could see the state I live in banning pro gay speech if it could. If I don't give my opponents free speech I won't have it myself later on.

. . . for the simple reason that it violates basic freedom of speech.

We shouldn't win because we ban hate speech -- we WILL win because our logic and case is stronger than "theirs." We'll win in the free and open marketplace of ideas.

We'd be hypocrites if by fighting for OUR freedoms we limit the freedoms of those we oppose. We'd be the equivalent of black Americans who are fighting against the LGBT community. As much as I despise the hate that they spew - I am compelled to defend their right to spew it. Freedom of speech is a two way street, and when you begin to limit what a citizenry can say it becomes a slippery slope. How long before, in a time of war, it becomes illegal to speak out against a countries actions as it would "demoralize our forces". Once you open the door to taking away even the most basic of a peoples rights, you close the door on democracy and freedom.

I do not know much about French Government or Law but from what I understand they have a very restrictive government, from freedom of speech to freedom of dress and religion. It is very... distasteful. I do not like it at all and I find it highly repulsive and uncivilized from a western country.

I'm sorry. And I know my sisters here don't mean to be offensive, and I don't know why I was thinking about this tonight, since it had fallen all the way off page one, but there is something subtly offensive about asking LBGT dems to fight for the right of pukey homophobes to speak hatefully of gays when gays could be speaking out in order to expand the constellation of gay, and thus, human rights.

Because asking us to do that is sort of like asking us to defend the right of Republicans to speak out in favor of a Federal Marriage Amendment. There's something about doing so which strikes me as self-hating - why don't we let this guy's fellow homophobes and the Vatican speak out in his defense? Why do WE have to do it? I don't want to do it - he can face his punishment, such that it is, as far as I'm concerned.

Thank you for listening to my rant! :D

in my part of the country no free speech would mean no ability to speak out for gay rights (which is currently the minority position). If we are fair weather friends of free speech it will bite us in the ass.

That's the rough idea - I'm not a lawyer, and obviously, that idea gets trampled on all the time.

I guess a related question would be should people be able to publicly deny the Holocaust in certain countries where it is a crime? I think in the absence of larger suppression of speech, we should leave the question of such restrictions up to local jurisdictions (as if we can really even do anything about it, if we wanted to).

Anyway, France will be France, regardless of what Americans want (sometimes it seems in spite of what we want). I just had to get that off my chest. :hi:

is a profound mistake with major blowback possibilities. Clearly France is banning speech which we don't like, but not all that long ago, at least in terms of history, they were banning speech we do like (when they were Vichy). Things like this have a tendency to turn.

Gays who promote equal rights for gays in repressive Middle Eastern countries are sometimes imprisoned, tortured, raped and even executed.

Priorities. That is, I'm saying that while this story is noteworthy, I think our focus on free speech issues should be 1) defending gays and lesbians and their free speech rights; and 2) condemning homophobia in such places where they face horrific sanctions.

Let the freepers and the Vatican defend this guy (and you just know they will).