[WikiEN-l] Re: Trading with the Enemy

[Anthere]

Delirium a écrit:
> Anthere wrote:
> 
>> I spent a good while looking for a reference that would support the 
>> claim the government threatened the sun of the 45000 euros fine.
>>
>> In french, the number of references I found is laughable. In short, 
>> the topic is not mentionned but by a couple of blog and forum. French 
>> just do not know of that law, which is a good measure of how refrained 
>> in their freedom of speech they feel.
>> Also, some discussions mentionning the law and the fine, indicated 
>> that some people thought The Sun attack was a two level construction
>> First : insulting the president very badly
>> Second : spreading the word this is illegal to do so, hence that no 
>> freedom of speech is allowed in France.
> 
> 
> That sounds likely, in light of some further reading.  It seems that the 
> Sun were both trying to insult the President, and also trying to get 
> themselves sued for it, which would've been very good for their public 
> relations most likely.  In fact, after they didn't get sued for the 
> "Chirac is a worm" one, they tried an even more outrageous story in 
> which they caricatured Chirac as Saddam Hussein's prostitute, and their 
> accompanying text seems similarly goading: "Last month we accused Chirac 
> of behaving like a worm. Today we say to the people of France: we did 
> not go far enough. Your president is not just a worm. He has behaved 
> like a Paris harlot." 
> (http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,918987,00.html).


I would dare to compare the Sun to some of our vandals.
If we are inclusionists, we tolerate their existence, however 
problematic they might be (ie, we try to bear our vandal existence)
If not inclusionists, we try to have that tabloid close its business by 
repeated huge fines (ie, we try to have the committee ban them)

Either way, none of this is a threat to freedom of speech.

Ihmo


> Which all makes it somewhat odd that the law still exists.  If it's not 
> going to be enforced even in such egregious cases as this, why not just 
> repeal it?
> 
> -Mark

I guess when you are an old country, you have old laws. It is not 
entirely impossible some of them are as old as begining of the XIXth 
century.
And rather than to discuss them, and spent time on them, you just stop 
referring to them and stop using them. They are just forgotten.

Meaningfull would be to see more exactly the context in which that law 
was voted. If it was created and voted, there probably was an event that 
explained it. I am no historian.