French lawmakers ban websites that spread 'false information' on abortion

[FigTree]

Source: International News 24/7. 20:03 local time

" French Senators on Thursday passed a bill to ban pro-life websites from spreading "false information" about abortion, following a heated debate with rightwing lawmakers who argued it would contravene freedom of expression. "

Read more: http://www.france24.com/en/20161207-french-lawmakers-ban-websites-spread-false-information-abortion

---

The Law was passed in 1975 by a right-wing administration not because of a sudden open-miodedness, but because clinics had become common-place and had massive support from lawyers, organizations and people in general, which had created a wide disconnect between the state of the law and... reality.
On a more general level, this also signals the possibility of consequencing the spread of false information, which has become a staple of the right-wing diet everywhere in the world.

[jonno99]

1. Censorship is seldom a good idea. It is better if the debate happens (ideas are exposed) in public

rather than have them relegated to the underground where they fester and metastasize.

[Pacifist Patriot]

2. I would have agreed with you prior to social media.

But it doesn't appear that real and honest debate happens these days. Lies are permitted to fester and metastasize the second they fly from someone's brain to their keyboard. Sticky wicket!

[Jansen]

9. Yes, very sticky.

I agree with the first response in principle but who is going to clean up the mess? It seems we are in a situation that just getting an article published makes it truth these days.

[jonno99]

11. As LW mentions below, there is a continuum of freedom & security. Near one side are those for whom

the only reasonable purpose of govt. is to stop an invading horde from crossing the border.

Near the other end (the subject of this OP?) are those who want govt. to make sure they are not offended by what they might see on the internet.

IMHO, the latter is more "security" than I would prefer.

Edit: perhaps we could devise a rating system for internet users. That way you could "sign-up" for the level of "security" that is most comfortable for you.

It could span from:
"I'm very sensitive, please shield me from any controversial topics"
- to -
"I'm fine if someone disagrees with me"
- to -
"Nazi propaganda doesn't scare me"
- to -
"I'm a fan of vivisection videos"

(tongue removed from cheek)

[DFW]

3. Agreed. It is seldom a good idea. But sometimes, it just is.

Here in Germany, anything coming uncomfortably close to Nazi propaganda is forbidden by law. Fox "News" doesn't broadcast here, although they'd love to.

The French know who Dr. Tiller was, too, and they have definitely had their fill of religious extremists killing people in recent times. In France, they monitor EVERYTHING. Phone calls, internet posts, every bank transaction. every social media posting, everything. Post something they don't like, and they'll find you sooner or later. Since Bataclan and Nice, it's been getting sooner and sooner, and they do NOT want some headline about some Catholic extremist shooting up some family planning clinic. If they have made this public, it's a fair bet they have done the background work already. They were just waiting for the legal green light so that when they pounce, they'll be doing so legally.

[jonno99]

5. Trading freedom for a police state (absolute "security")? No thanks. nt

[DFW]

6. I have news for you

People were on here touting the "socialist paradise" that is France during the primaries while French citizens were already scrutinized to a degree the KGB could only dream about, and no one here said a whimper. Now, suddenly, it's "no, thanks?"

And here in Germany, no one except the neonazis objects to the rules prohibiting public displays of Nazi propaganda or Holocaust denial. And if you think today's Germany is a police state, Germany's cops look on in amazement and horror at new police excesses reported every week in the great "free" USA.

Nothing is absolute, and our "freedom" is very relative.

[jonno99]

7. Thanks - but it is not "news" to me. nt

[LanternWaste]

8. There is a continuum which exists... absolute freedom on the one, absolute security on the other

There is a continuum which exists... absolute freedom on the one, absolute security on the other. The irrational and absolute mind wishes one or the other, while the rational mind realizes that culture, social strictures, economic security, et. al. forces upon us a constant and consistent trade-off which never ends, both ways.

Regardless of how we may wish to paraphrase the bumper-sticker of slave owner.

[jonno99]

10. Totally agree. nt

[DK504]

4. If the French and the rest of Europe

weren't become so far right along with half the other countries in Europe.

[paleotn]

12. Freedom of speech ends precisely where it interferes with another's rights.

You cannot yell fire in a theater. Writing or speaking lies that damage another are liable and slander and punishable as such. French lawmakers have decided that such speech is damaging to others and infringes on their rights. Nothing is absolute. Everything has its limits.

[FigTree]

13. Actually the article is not very clearly titled:

Apparently, it's not the sites themselves that would be banned. They would be banned "from spreading false information". "Attempts to indimidate women seeking an abortion (would be punished) by up to two years in prison and a fine of 30,000 euros ($31,900)." (lower in the article.)
That would be the cost of lying on purpose. Should lying have a cost?

[FiveGoodMen]

14. Why the scare quotes around 'false information'?