French here. I've been on T_D since early 2016, after seeing all the fuss the media did about "Le DRUMPF!"
Since then, I've looked around for information, learned some about the US Constitution and more importantly the Bill of Rights, learned about my own Constitution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizens, and gasped at how crazy the latter is.
Art. II: The goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, safety and resistance against oppression.
Art. V: The law has the right to forbid only actions harmful to society. Anything which is not forbidden by the law cannot be impeded, and no one can be constrained to do what it does not order.
Art. XI: The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, except to respond to the abuse of this liberty, in the cases determined by the law.
Free Speech isn't listed in the "imprescriptible rights of man". "Liberty" is pretty much vague to the point of non-enforceability. "Free communication of thoughts and of opinions" is a "precious" right, not an "imprescriptible" one.
The Law determines what constitutes abuse of Free Speech. I get that "abuse of [Free Speech]" encompasses things like calls to action, but still, any law can curtail Free Speech. Hate Speech laws wouldn't be unconstitutional here, as any lawyer could argue that "hate speech is a common source of stress leading to suffering and even death for many" or something along those lines, that is, "actions harmful to society".
I was floored.
French here. I've been on T_D since early 2016, after seeing all the fuss the media did about "Le DRUMPF!"
Since then, I've looked around for information, learned some about the US Constitution and more importantly the Bill of Rights, learned about my own Constitution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizens, and gasped at how crazy the latter is.
Art. II: The goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, safety and resistance against oppression.
Art. V: The law has the right to forbid only actions harmful to society. Anything which is not forbidden by the law cannot be impeded, and no one can be constrained to do what it does not order.
Art. XI: The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, except to respond to the abuse of this liberty, in the cases determined by the law.
Free Speech isn't listed in the "imprescriptible rights of man". "Liberty" is pretty much vague to the point of non-enforceability. "Free communication of thoughts and of opinions" is a "precious" right, not an "imprescriptible" one.
The Law determines what constitutes abuse of Free Speech. I get that "abuse of [Free Speech]" encompasses things like calls to action, but still, any law can curtail Free Speech. Hate Speech laws wouldn't be unconstitutional here, as a crafty lawyer could argue that "hate speech is a common source of suffering and death for many" or something along those lines.
I was floored.