julien tayon wrote:
- first it was not neutral, as a french who is aware of political
science and history letting him write this article was the same as letting KKK write an article on white power. It does not means he is racist, it only means he is lacking of objectivity (or "recul"),
But, it is the *article* that lacks objectivity. The original author is not very important. It is almost always better to fix the article, than to delete. Moving really bad parts to a talk page as a temporary measure is fine, of course.
There are certain topics on which I do not try to write, because I know that NPOV would be too difficult for me on those topics. My own biases, held in check by good judgment, do not prevent me from writing on wikipedia.
- secondly, is considered racist anythings that gets in contradiction
with the first article of the Déclaration universelle des Droits de l'Homme, saying that any people are born equal in dignity and in regard to the law, and therefore (article 2) no difference can be made regarding the the people. And that is illegal in France.
Whether it is illegal or not in France to voice unpopular political opinions does not matter to wikipedia simply because the wikipedia should not voice *any* political opinions, popular or otherwise. And not for reasons of law, but for reasons of NPOV.
Europe is not america, we do not have the 1st Amendment (liberty of speech) we have la liberté d'expression (which is bounded to the respect of the ground of democracy), and since the 2nd WW it is considered as a delictuous to justify or state theory that are either xenophobic, racist, or revisionist (like saying shoah never existed). You may say that wikipedia is in the US. Fine, Yahoo also was but had problems with french justice for selling nazis items, because regarding internet, France -as the US- consider their justice is "extra-terriorial". As long as a speech is seen from France, it can be prosecuted wherever the server is.
Outside of instituting a massive firewall like that of China, the French government can not do anything to me at all, no matter what. I have no business interests in France. I do not intend to visit France.
I say the same thing of China, of Iraq, of North Korea, of every state that would seek to impose by force their views on what an encyclopedia should contain: I am an American, so I will publish what I wish, and you can't stop me without blocking the Internet completely.
But as it turns out, this whole discussion of French law is misplaced, because -- as I understand it, anyway -- our policy of NPOV would not run afoul of French censorship law.
If we accept definition that are an implicit legitimation of racism (racialism) (wich made nazi legitimate too in killing tzigan) :
- should we also made article saying that it is legitimate to think
shoah never was? If so no matter what my opinions are, I will write it.
An article on racialism should not implicitly legitimate the concept. An article on holocaust denial should not implicitly legitimate the concept. Avoiding these topics is not right. Treating them with NPOV is right.
- Do you assume the legal responsabilities if we are prosecuted ?
I do not advocate that anyone break the laws of their own country, because I think that civil disobediance is up to you. If you are prosecuted for writing a valid NPOV article, then I will do everything in my power to come to your public defense.
But isn't this a fairly remote possibility anyway? Does the French government really look for people who are writing biased encyclopedia articles as part of an international humanitarian project?
If you are not firm at the very beginning, fr.wikipedia.org will have the same problem as indymedia => shutdown -f now.
I am not sure I understand you here. How was French Indymedia shut down? By legal action? Or because the maintainers chose to close it rather than permit articles that disagreed with the general Indymedia politics?
--Jimbo