France bans citizen journalists from reporting violence [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

France bans citizen journalists from reporting violence

zicofirol
03-07-2007, 07:10 PM
:o :eek: , pathetic decision, not that I care that much, but what a fucked up way of thinking, where government wants to control anything and everything...

The French Constitutional Council has approved a law that criminalizes the filming or broadcasting of acts of violence by people other than professional journalists. The law could lead to the imprisonment of eyewitnesses who film acts of police violence, or operators of Web sites publishing the images, one French civil liberties group warned on Tuesday....

...Pascal Cohet, a spokesman for French online civil liberties group Odebi. And anyone publishing such images could face up to five years in prison and a fine of €75,000 (US$98,537), potentially a harsher sentence than that for committing the violent act...

...The government has also proposed a certification system for Web sites, blog hosters, mobile-phone operators and Internet service providers, identifying them as government-approved sources of information if they adhere to certain rules. The journalists’ organization Reporters Without Borders, which campaigns for a free press, has warned that such a system could lead to excessive self censorship as organizations worried about losing their certification suppress certain stories...
That last part is even more stupid...

http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/03/06/franceban/index.php

Socket
03-07-2007, 09:23 PM
The article I read indicated that this law was approved on the 16th anniersary of the videotaping of the beating of Rodney King in LA. Had this law been in effect in the US at that time, George Halliday would have been sentenced to 5 years in prison and fined a smidgen under $100,000. :eek:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2007-03-07-happy-slapping-law_N.htm

Bad, bad idea.

R.Federer
03-07-2007, 09:52 PM
Do you know what prompted this? Was it a specific event?

I am staunchly opposed to censorship. However, I can imagine that there are areas where it is not so black and white. For example, I can imagine pedophiles videotaping and sharing violent sexual acts against children, and criminalizing this would force internet site owners from posting such pictures, which could go a long way in their sharing resources for child trafficking.

Not that it forgives censorship, but it puts this act in a slightly different light. If you have any info on its origins, I am very interested to know. Would you kindly post that here

Lee
03-07-2007, 10:33 PM
Do you know what prompted this? Was it a specific event?

I am staunchly opposed to censorship. However, I can imagine that there are areas where it is not so black and white. For example, I can imagine pedophiles videotaping and sharing violent sexual acts against children, and criminalizing this would force internet site owners from posting such pictures, which could go a long way in their sharing resources for child trafficking.

Not that it forgives censorship, but it puts this act in a slightly different light. If you have any info on its origins, I am very interested to know. Would you kindly post that here

There's law already covering this part.

zicofirol
03-07-2007, 10:40 PM
Do you know what prompted this? Was it a specific event?

Not that it forgives censorship, but it puts this act in a slightly different light. If you have any info on its origins, I am very interested to know. Would you kindly post that here
Not sure about the specific event, but this is certainly not called for and a ridiculous ban on freedom of expression...

R.Federer
03-07-2007, 10:55 PM
There's law already covering this part.

Yes, it would be an additional deterrent. (It was just an example, but I think you understood the gist).

For instance, laws against sexual predatory acts existed but still, new laws to further mitigate the predators' behavior were instituted (Meghan Law in the US is one example).

So, is there already a law in place in US/Canada that OPERATORS of web sites can be prosecuted for child porn images? I did not know that. But if it is, that is fantastic.

Lee
03-08-2007, 12:04 AM
If I understand the law correctly, in US, anyone possess any child porn in any form would be prosecuted as sexual predator.

Socket
03-08-2007, 04:30 AM
Yes, the laws in the States are very tough on this. Child porn is obscenity, and obscenity receives no First Amendment protection at all.

buddyholly
03-08-2007, 05:39 AM
Do you know what prompted this? Was it a specific event?

I am staunchly opposed to censorship. However, I can imagine that there are areas where it is not so black and white. For example, I can imagine pedophiles videotaping and sharing violent sexual acts against children, and criminalizing this would force internet site owners from posting such pictures, which could go a long way in their sharing resources for child trafficking.

Not that it forgives censorship, but it puts this act in a slightly different light. If you have any info on its origins, I am very interested to know. Would you kindly post that here

I think they are totally different. Filming violent porn I am sure is already covered. But it seems this new law would prevent someone who comes across violence occurring in a public place from documenting it.

This goes further than even Cheney has dared.

R.Federer
03-08-2007, 05:50 AM
If I understand the law correctly, in US, anyone possess any child porn in any form would be prosecuted as sexual predator.

Yes I think that law has been around for a while.
I was asking if there is a law under which the owner of a domain, or an ISP, who do not otherwise have any day to day dealings with the contents of the many web sites that use these domains or are served by the ISP, could be prosecuted.

The idea that you cannot videotape police violence is audacious, no doubt. This is why I asked if there was a specific incident that prompted it. I could imagine a few areas where putting more deterrents in place would have some benefit. Sexual victimization, particularly of children is one.

R.Federer
03-08-2007, 05:52 AM
It seems there was at least one underlying cause:

During parliamentary debate of the law, government representatives said the offense of filming or distributing films of acts of violence targets the practice of “happy slapping,” in which a violent attack is filmed by an accomplice, typically with a camera phone, for the amusement of the attacker’s friends.

R.Federer
03-08-2007, 05:54 AM
This goes further than even Cheney has dared.

Yes, say what one will about the U.S., they do have strong checks and balances in place by way of the ACLU and other such that even the great Cheney cannot get around. This kind of law simply could not have passed in the U.S.A. In fact, it sounds like something passed in a totalitarian regime. France? :o

Scotso
03-08-2007, 05:54 AM
What a ridiculous law.

zicofirol
03-08-2007, 05:57 AM
It seems there was at least one underlying cause:

that already is covered in the US, if you film youre friends beating someone up, youre an accomplice...

But like the article says, this is about citizens just filming violent scenes, and going to jail for that...

Damita
03-10-2007, 12:07 AM
:eek: You're overreacting! really! I mean, I understand your concern about the possible censorship it could lead to, but it wasn't enacted in such a prespective. Like someone mentionned above, it was voted to fight "happy slapping". It has become more and more common, because all school kids have a cell phone now :rolleyes: and we've heard a lot about a teacher in a junior high school who was beaten during the class by a pupil, in front of all the rest, and a friend of that guy was filming it with his phone!
So this law aims at providing sentences to such disgusting conducts, as well as preventing them by being scary enough to potential happy slappers (or whatever you call them). And most people didn't pay attention to the news btw, this law really didn't make head titles here :p

Breath and relax :p
It's not a totalitarian regime (we're even considered 'soft' on many topics)... although, it might change a bit (a lot!) after the next presidential election :scared: :tape: :help: