Okay, I'll bite. I did a search for the same story being reported on Jewish websites and they apparently are guilty of the same 'yellow journalism' you claim. In fact, out of the dozens of stories I found, none of them mentions any other group by name so I suppose every single news outlet is racist and anti-Semitic.
That would be an interesting feat, every news agency on Earth being racist and anti-Semitic. Oh, you think I'm accusing them of that. Failure. I stated that shoddy yellow journalism leads to such things and I'm annoyed by the lack of coverage of the other groups. But there were four other groups, non-Jewish, that were also a part of the legal action. This kind of journalism, only focusing on the Jewish group that makes the complaint, is very common. You've fallen right into the trap, only blaming one group simply because it was the only one named. Perhaps instead of focusing on only the named group, you should be asking the papers why they weren't covering the other groups.
Come to think of it, I don't even know why anyone would take offense to not specifically naming any other groups. Jews were insulted on Twitter. Jewish groups pressured Twitter to prosecute the offenders. Where's the offense and why would it cause racism or anti-semitism? Also, you've now made three posts regarding this, and have not named the other groups. If your the only one that is taking offense to the lack of coverage, (which it seems you are.) then why not enlighten us with your knowledge?
Because you are right, the other groups are not named in media reports, which I take issue with (not offense, I really don't know where these fantastic ideas of yours come from). I haven't found which groups they are. All the reports say is 'four other human rights groups' or 'four other anti-racism groups'. What this does is single out the Jewish group. It's like having five people commit a crime and only concentrate on the white one when the others are black, Asian, Hispanic and Arab. The effect is subtle initially but does long-term damage.
I still don't understand where the alleged injustice is here. Jewish groups are not upset that they are being singled out because they were very vocal in their legal maneuverings. What exactly is the issue here?
If you don't see the issue at this point, you never will and I strongly suggest you get a better education. I can't explain it any clearer and I can't understand how you don't get it.
Well, lets assume I'm of a lower level of intelligence. Explain exactly who this 'yellow journalism' is intended to harm.
This banning of bad mouthing jews was started a few years ago by French President Sarkozy. The same President that banned the burkha. The same President who himself is Jewish. The same President who kicked out all the Christian Romanians. Quote from Sarkozy - "I have also lived in Israel for four years where I took the Bar. I speak Hebrew fluently. My passion is politics — writing, defending Israel against media bias, and giving lectures." Sarkozy also banned halal foods in all schools regardless of the religion of their students and also closed muslim swimming pools that have separate men's/women's swimming hours. The only reason Francois Hollande brought in this act is because now he is bragging that he is finishing his predecessor's work. And where would a student's union get the money to threaten twitter in San Fran for 50mill? pffft!
Wow, terrorism is a real issue of concern and genocide of millions of people isn't? Also, I think you are misguided about what 'free speech" is. There was an excellent discussion recently about it here on the forum, and it's not as black and white as people defending hate speech would like it to be. As for genocide, perhaps when it's close to home the priorities are different. But I am confident this world is a better place, because nothing is absolute, including freedom, and I'd much rather have freedom to live, than give someone freedom to advocate my extermination. [MENTION=44992]JJ_Maxx[/MENTION]: Crusades were a long, long time ago. We have the right to evolve, psychologically, as species, don't we? But to regress back to the Crusades now, in the 21-st century, that would be wrong. [MENTION=52161]erebh[/MENTION]: the other extreme is just as bad. Did you know, they did studies on this, they found that extremists from the opposite sides of the argument have more in common then extremists do with less extreme people on their own side.
As liberal as I am, I honestly can't object to people taking a stand against antisemitism. I'm biased though, I'll admit it; I have a good friend who is Jewish, and an ex girlfriend who is Jewish, so I know what antisemitism is like from the perspective of someone who has suffered it, despite the fact that I myself am not Jewish. Trust me, antisemitism is honesty not like other forms of prejudice, in actually the most part. There is a horrible, idiot conspiracy that Jewish people secretly rule the world through mega-corporations, and this isn't an idle thing, it's something that influences less-extreme forms of antisemitism. The Jewish person has been discriminated against for too long, and it's been even socially acceptable for too long (I'm talking historically, not recently. Charles Dickens's Oliver Twist had a terrible Jewish stereotype in the way of Fagan and then Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, and even before that. Some laws and actions can gradually change public opinion against an obvious social ill. The best example I can think of is slavery, which was outlawed in the British Empire in the early 1800s I think, and while racism still exists in the UK, the general opinion of this issue has been influenced by this act of Parliament, and also the British Liberal movement that really doesn't get the credit it deserves. It's because of this we have thinkers like John Locke, and Adam Smith, and Libertarianism as I understand it. These are factors, but many small contributions build to big changes. A change in law could be an influence in a greater social improvement, and it's about time we try and tackle this pathetic demonization of Jewish people.
I don't see a difference in being anti-Semite or anti-black or anti-Irish or anti-Mongolian for that matter. It's not too long ago signs in boarding houses across the UK proudly said - No blacks no dogs no Irish! (You can just google those 6 words to see a million references.) With the French banning anti Jewish rhetoric on twitter only goes to say anti-black or anti muslim is fine - its only Jews that can't be offended. Ban the lot or let people say what's on their minds. I notice here in France you can carry anti-gay banners all day long, real hateful banners that the world saw on show in Paris a few weeks back when they march against same sex marriage. Why would a govt bow to one group and watch on as hundreds of other groups get slammed?
I can't speak for the French government or people, but here in Britain all forms of hate-speech is tackled, so I'm looking at this from the perspective of a foreigner. I can't stand, or understand any form of prejudice, but as I said in that first post, antisemitism is more than just a regular prejudice. Things like The Protocols of Zion, and this idiot idea that Jewish people secretly control the world, these are not as uninfluential on the mood of antisemitism as you might like to think. Even passive antisemitism is informed by these crack-pot ideas. As I said myself: I have seen British racism at it's worst firsthand, I'm a member of Unite Against Fascism. I've had bottles of urine thrown at me by the EDL types. But I also fully aware that from a historical context it has been much worse. I like to think I can take a pretty good guess as to why that is too. Edit: unless that was rhetorical, do you seriously think I am a mouthpiece for any government? Serious question.
I believe everyone should be allowed to say what they want, when they want, as long as it does not directly encourage violence or other breach of liberties or human rights. If a statement is unsubstantiated then the problem lies with the ones taking offense to said statement. If it is not, well then the speaker only speak the truth, and the statement should be met with rational debate and good logical arguments. Censoring things just because we do not like it will come back and bite us in the ass at a later point. Who has the authority to decide what is considered to be offending or not? The government? Arent govenment just a group of people like the rest of us? Professors and doctors and other highly educated people then? I do not think so. While those with an academic background do tend to have a broader understanding of these topics they are not exempt from neither emotion nor prejudice. At the end of the day, we have to recognize that we all live in the same world, and that we all have conflicting viewpoints and ideas. It is only when we disallow debate around certain topics, and thus take away our ability to fight such viewpoints with the weapon of words that we are in a real danger of those ideas actually taking root and leading to something more than what they are. Which is opinions and views. So as the old saying goes. I might not agree with everything you say, but I would give my life for your right to say it.
Inna Shevchenko, leader of the extreme feminist group 'Femen' has taken to twitter, In her bid to provoke Muslims not just in France but all over the world and tweeted, "What can be more stupid than Ramadam, What can be more uglier than this religion?" http://www.france24.com/en/20130717-marianne-inna-shevchenko-femen-tunisia-topless-feminist-amina-ramadan?ns_campaign=editorial&ns_source=FB&ns_mchannel=reseaux_sociaux&ns_fee=0&ns_linkname=20130717_marianne_inna_shevchenko_femen_tunisia_topless Ms. Shevchenko has just been given asylum by France after death threats forced her to leave her native Ukraine and this is how she behaves. Her actions are not the point here however, Francois Hollande (French PM) has totally ignored the tweet and commentators here are accusing him of being sympathetic only to Jews even though Islamism is the 2nd biggest religion here. it seems only anti-semitic tweets are outlawed.
