In France, Only Journalists Can Film Violence 531
BostonBTS sends word that the French Constitutional Council has just made it illegal to film violence unless you are a professional journalist (or to distribute a video containing violence). The law was approved exactly 16 years after amateur videographer George Holliday filmed Los Angeles police officers beating Rodney King. The Council was tidying up a body of law about offenses against the public order, and wanted to ban "happy slapping." A charitable reading would be that the lawmakers stumbled into unintended consequences. Not according to Pascal Cohet, a spokesman for French online civil liberties group Odebi: "The broad drafting of the law so as to criminalize the activities of citizen journalists unrelated to the perpetrators of violent acts is no accident, but rather a deliberate decision by the authorities, said [Cohet]. He is concerned that the law, and others still being debated, will lead to the creation of a parallel judicial system controlling the publication of information on the Internet."
Workaround (Score:5, Interesting)
movies and tv caught up in this too? (Score:3, Interesting)
so where's the line between amateur videographer, and aspiring reality-tv cameraman? Or maybe we need a venn diagram with professional journalist in there somewhere too.
Inadmissible? (Score:4, Interesting)
What We're Doing (Score:5, Interesting)
And if you don't publish, then how is it illegal to have a record of what your own senses experienced?
Why should media corporations that officials prefer have all the privileges? Already many amateur bloggers are better than practically all the pro journalists working today.
Re:Similar to good samaritan laws? (Score:1, Interesting)
Whether someone is filming it on their camera phone or not has nothing to do with it.
There goes sports. (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess sports cameramen better start practicing their journalism skills.
Re:liberty (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong: they would value their freedom of speech very much if their governments hadn't taken it away long ago. If you want to see what I mean, go to France and say anything vaguely insulting about jews or arabs, and you'll quickly meet Bubba in the brig. (Note: I have nothing against jews or arabs, but I reckon it should be legal to say anything about them as long as it's not a call for racial violence).
French folks think they have freedom of speech but they don't. They did nothing to defend it and they lost it. The only difference with the US is, Americans still have the 1st, but that's not going to last for a lot longer, so enjoy it while you can. And don't kid yourself thinking you can fight to preserve it, the forces of apathy in the general public in the US make this fight lost in advance.
Re:What We're Doing (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this opinion based on French jurisprudence? This sounds suspiciously American. I don't really know much about the French system, but they may not have a constitution, or any natural rights inherent in their system. The government might have total authority to define who a journalist is.
I just did some preliminary googling, and I didn't see anything about journalism or the press in the French constitution.
"And if you don't publish, then how is it illegal to have a record of what your own senses experienced?"
Apparently, they just passed a law making it illegal. I mean, didn't you read the article?
Re:Inadmissible? (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, evidence from video cameras, whether operated by a professional journalist or not, are considred as admissible in a court of law. If I remember well (my Law School years are far behind me...), a video is not considered as a "full" proof, since the video could have been tampered or altered. On the other hand, a video is definitely admissible, as long as the person filming had no time to react or was not an accomplice in the violence.
The problem is, of course, that with this new decision, the Constitutional Council opens a way to prosecute people who witnessed police violence and/or abuses and then decide to broadcast/upload the video over the Internet, without going to a court or to the police first. This is clearly designed to stifle dissent and the flow of information over the Internet.
Re:liberty (Score:5, Interesting)
America has fallen sharply as Bush has stayed in office, and ranks 53rd equal in the world for freedom of the press. France is currently 35th equal. There appears to be less censorship in France than in America for media reporting. Kinda the opposite of your statement, right? But don't let that get in the way of your blind jingoism.
Source: http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639 [rsf.org]
Re:Workaround (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:what if you witness police brutality? (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, and I am certainly not a French Lawyer, but yes... I believe you could be prosecuted for not helping a victim of police violence...
On the other hand, given the circumstances, you could probably count on the leniency of the French Court...
If I remember well, not helping another person when your own life and safety are in danger cannot be used as a cause for a prosecution. But I need to check that out. I honestly don't think that would be too much of a problem (but I may be wrong).
If that's any comfort to you, if you are a witness of police violence and try to intervene, you usually end up being a victim of police violence yourself. Same if you try to film said police violence.
Unintended consequences (Score:4, Interesting)
French Motto: Liberty,Equality,Fraternity,Silence (Score:2, Interesting)
I feel awful for them, but they probably feel awful for Americans, what with the incredible liberties that we've lost.
Someone noticed (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's say there is an altercation between a cop and a young minority person. When the dust clears, said minority person is dead. Two hours later a video shows up on YouTube showing the cop beating the person with a large club. This is picked up, played on the nightly news. Everyone in the town sees it.
Cop is convicted because "everone knows" he did it.
The video is later shown to be an utter fabrication by two college students looking for fame.
Under today's law in the US, the college students can't be charged with anything. The video would never be admitted into court as evidence, but it would be fresh in the minds of all the jurors and couldn't possibly be excluded from their minds.
We have skated pretty close to some TV stations doing this kind of thing in the past, but most know better now. They don't accept just anything. Photoshopping pictures is being done, and some people are getting caught. In the US most news organizations are aware of the problem and are somewhat sensitive about it. It probably would take a case like this to really bring it home to the "profressionals", but we are already seeing a lot of amateur content making it out that cannot be verified and is subject to all kinds of fraud.
But "everyone" knows "seeing is believing" and so they are going to take anything that even looks real as the absolute truth.
Perhaps France is trying to slide away from this, just a little bit? We're ripe for some real juicy stuff in the US and until it happens there isn't going to be any restriction on so-called citizen journalists putting video out that purports to show crimnal activity. And it will be impossible to keep it away from a jury, leading to instant convictions.
Re:Workaround (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember, the left-right spectrum is an economic spectrum, ranging from pure communism at the far left to pure capitalism at the far right, and everything in between. Not all leftists believe in civil liberties (look at Stalin, Mao, and Castro, for example). Respect of civil liberties are represented on a different scale.
Why I'm glad I don't live in France: #235 (Score:2, Interesting)
In mother Russia, the violence films you!
Re:Workaround (Score:3, Interesting)
No true leftist/progressive/socialist believes in -individual- civil liberties. They pay lip service to group rights but don't believe in that either. In the end all left theory boils down to the individual is a meaningless cog in the system who has no inalienable rights, existing only to serve the state.
You really can't have civil liberties as we commonly understand them without the economic and property rights that make them real. You can't really have the right to free speech for example if you aren't allowed to own a printing press or purchase access to other mass communication media. See the US McCain/Feingold bill for example.
This new French law is for one purpose only, to suppress knowledge of the ongoing riots by the Religiojn of Peace(tm) in the slums around Paris.
Re:It's a serious problem. (Score:3, Interesting)
In most of America, I can shoot anybody who threatens me or my property, and be pretty safe from lawsuits (the major exception is the Anti-Christian Lawsuit Union - er - the American Civil Liberties Union's lawsuits). It's really a shame that liberties have gotten so restricted in Europe that a burglar can sue the farmer who sat up in the night with a shotgun and shot him, after being robbed multiple times in a row. The criminal won, and that farmer is now in an English prison.
It's just too bad Europe doesn't have a powerful organization like the NRA to protect the right of self-defense.
Re:liberty (Score:2, Interesting)
Are you talking about your personal "freedom" taken away by your so-called patriot laws?
Yes. These were ratified by our senators in a majority twice -- both the left and the right. It has had literally zero effect on me and every single person I know. Do I want them there? Of course not, but I always wonder why people point at this as proof that we've turned fascist. A few anecdotal examples on the Internet do not count as evidence that we're now officially fascist.
Or perhaps the freedom to make everyone else in the world wonder about U.S. mental sanity when they issued the Guantanamo joke?
Yes. We like to use our freedom to make ourselves a laughing stock just as much as France and anybody else does. Live with it -- it's our right to do as we want and take the consequences of it. Once the consequences are bad enough, we'll also have the freedom to fix it.
Or it is the freedom to use torture, indirectly backed by U.S. officials?
Yes. I hate how our military and journalists and charitable organizers are kidnapped, raped, and actually tortured (you know, like real torture -- involving real pain), and then we're berated for making those suspected of attempting to kill us skip a few meals or deal with some offensive language and bad music.
Or it is the freedom to use CIA-controlled jails around the world, to avoid legal issues when "interrogating" war prisonners?
Yes. Although, I'm mostly saying yes to keep the parallelism in my post. :P I don't agree with this one nor do I see how it affects the freedom of American citizens. But we do have the freedom to be hypocrites, yes.
Or perhaps the famous "freedom" fries that make everyone in the world laugh at the whole ridiculousness of the idea?
Yes. You can laugh at our freedom fries (I've yet to personally see any for myself) as long as we can laugh at your lame movies. See? Everybody has an opinion.
Or perhaps it's the freedom to redefine history (remember the "french victories/defeats" scam? or perhaps the ridiculous "Saddam Hussein is allied with Osama Ben Laden"?) as it pleases the U.S. people?
Yes. These are precisely the things that freedom should protect. A satirical website poking fun at a government? Yeah, that should be 100% protected all the time. I've never heard anybody say "Saddam is allied with Osama" other than people claiming that Bush said that. I never heard it directly nor did I go looking for it. Anybody else who said it should have their freedom to say it -- even if it's wrong. That's what freedom is for. You can say whatever you want -- even if it makes you look like a moron (see the parent post).
And what about the freedom of having the worst debt in the known world history?
Yes. And another favorite. I love how the world's largest economy is expected not to have the world's largest debt. My current debt with my income is about $110,000 (house, car, etc.). My father's debt is about $600,000 with the same items. My father and his wife have a combined income and assets easily twenty times what mine is. Who's more in debt? If you want to look at debt by percentage of GDP, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ public_debt [wikipedia.org]
You'll have to scroll down a bit, though... the US is all the way down at #32. Tied with France, interestingly enough.
Or perhaps the freedom to plain arrogance despite evidence (Who in the world, but the U.S. people, swallowed the "Crusade Against the Axis of Evil" sperm?)
Yes. Our politicians have the freedom to say stupid things. Besides, if you're going to criticize all Americans for the actions of some stupid politicians, then at least lend me the opportunity to remind you where the whole concept of a crusade comes from. Yeah, maybe it's unfair to call France a bunch of crusade
"Cheese-eating surrender monkeys" anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, heavens yes. I suspect it was around from the moment the War ended, although I think it got its biggest boost during the De Gaulle years, when many Americans felt that they were basically being snubbed by a people they had just spent a whole lot of blood and treasure to first liberate, and then subsequently rebuild. (Nonwithstanding that the Russians did also spend a lot of blood and treasure, I think most Americans felt that there was some kinship between France and the U.S., and so when De Gaulle basically spurned the West in favor of playing each side against the other, it was taken a lot worse than had, say, Turkey done the same thing.)
I don't know what the general zeitgeist was in the U.S. regarding France, prior to WWII (I think it was rather favorable, though), but it definitely turned sour during the Cold War.
The recent political situation has certainly exacerbated the situation, but it didn't just start yesterday, or with Bush. (In fact, the Simpsons quote in my Subject, you'll find, predates Bush -- it was from 1995.)
Re:Workaround (Score:3, Interesting)
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and they generally stink.
I think a right is what you can convince others is a right. Rights are what you can defend. Governments exist as a social contract to create, AND protect those rights. I beleive this, like most political scientists, as a matter of convention, and not a matter of science, it is the most pragmatic theory on rights. Personally I follow J.S. Mill, your rights only exist as far as someone else's, and government, as social contract, exists to protect and define these boundaries. Generally (as seen in the formation of all modern democracies) this means the government is made as a powerful ally to those who are too weak to protect their own rights, which is actually inline with early communist philosophy (As in Marx and Lenin, Stalin subverted it). But, then again, this is just my (somewhat informed) opinion. When someone shows me actual documentation of a "god given", or "unalienable" right I'll hop over to that side in an instant. For now I must accept that a right is an arbitrary social construct lacking proof to the contrary.
By all means, if you think a right is being violated, defend it. By force, if necessary. If the offender backs down, congratulations, you have a new right.
Re:yes, please be real... (Score:3, Interesting)
As for whether the US could have done it alone, it depends on the circumstances. If we assume that Hitler did not attack the USSR, but nor did the USSR intervene in any invasion of Europe, and if we assume that Britain did not fight in the war, but also remained neutral, and if we assume that the US tried to invade Germany without any other allies, then it seems debatable whether the US would succeed. The logistics would not be on the US's side, and there'd be a distinct lack of friendly territory from which to successfully launch an invasion. Further, the German military would be fresh and not already embattled on two fronts. I suspect that whoever wins this hypothetical battle comes down to who develops the Bomb first.
If you just mean the US could have done it alone after the German military had fought everyone else to a standstill, then that seems a more probable scenario.